Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Maidenhead Water Bill [Lords].
Dover Gas Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Dagenham Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till Monday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (Trolley Vehicles, etc.) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

FRESH WATER SUPPLY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the regulations in force regarding the taking on board of fresh water for cooking and drinking in merchant
ships; if he is aware that it is the practice of certain ships' captains to fill up the fresh water tanks with river water Which is not pure; and whether he will take steps to ensure the taking of an adequate supply of fresh and pure water in British and Foreign ports, respectively?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am sending the hon. and gallant Member copies of the provisions relating to the supply of water on merchant ships, and he will see that in home ports the water is subject to inspection by officers of the Board of Trade, and that at any port the water has to be examined if a complaint is made by three or more members of the crew, and any defects have to be put right. I am aware that river water is sometimes taken. It is the duty of a Master to take good water whenever it is available, and if particulars are given of any case in which this is not done, the matter will be inquired into.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the cases are very rare where bad water is taken aboard?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I am. As a matter of fact, very careful investigation was made in the Port of Hull, and we found very few cases where anything could be said against the water, and I am glad to say that the majority of these cases concerned foreign, and not British vessels.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that complaints do not arise at the Port of Hull at all in respect of water taken aboard at Hull, but to water which is obtained by vessels in foreign ports?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that in the few cases where the water was not satisfactory it was water on board when the ship arrived from a foreign port. I am not casting any reflection on the Hull water.

BRITISH SHIPS (TRANSFERS TO FOREIGN FLAGS).

Mr. LAWSON: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to cases in which ship-
owning firms in this country are placing their ships under Foreign flags for the purpose of evading income tax; and whether he will introduce legislation to make such transfers illegal?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No specific cases of the nature mentioned have been brought to my notice, and it is not proposed to introduce legislation on this matter.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a shipowner made a statement last week that no less than 10 firms in Newcastle had transferred to another flag, because crews were cheaper and taxation could be avoided; and is he aware that that same shipowner advised his own company to do likewise?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is a question next on the Order Paper which asks for the number of ships that have been transferred. When I have read that answer, it will be seen that the number transferred last year is considerably less than the average of previous years.

Mr. HAYES: Can we have an assurance which will contradict the statement of the Seed Shipping Company, that foreign seamen are 25 per cent. better than British seamen?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir; I am sure that, if any such statement were made, it needs no contradiction at all, because it is transparently untrue. May I say, also, that very often, while you may get a cheaper but not as efficient a crew, other charges like insurance may be increased, and I am sure that the bulk of British shipowners much prefer to sail their ships under the British flag than under any other.

Mr. LAWSON: If I send the right hon. Gentleman this statement, will he investigate the matter and find out what the truth is, as a certain shipowner repudiated the statement and said that there was no truth in it; is it not, therefore, well to have it investigated?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that I can investigate a statement made by some particular shipowner. He is entitled to his opinion, and we are entitled to ours, and I say emphatically that the opinion of the majority of British shipowners is that they are best under the British flag.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Would it not be practically impossible to devise legislation effectively to prevent the transfer of British ships to foreign flags?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, I think that it would be impracticable, unworkable, and undesirable.

Mr. HARRIS: Did not a large American fleet transfer to English hands recently?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, that is quite true, and in considering this matter one should bear in mind the great new ships which are transferred to the British flag in contra-distinction to what are rather old ships which find their way to other flags.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not possible, in view of the first part of the question, that the correct remedy is to lower the Income Tax?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many British ships have been transferred to foreign flags during the last 12 months; and whether he has any information as to the proposed transference of the whole of the shipping of the Seed Shipping Company, of Newcastle, to the Latvian flag?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: During the 12 months ended 31st May, 1928, the registers of 272 vessels were reported as having been closed in this country on account of transfer of vessel to a foreign flag. This number is considerably below the average for the preceding five years. Statements have appeared in the Press regarding a proposed transference of the three vessels owned by the Seed Shipping Company to the Latvian flag, but I have no official information on the subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of repudiating the statement of the managing director of the Seed Shipping Company, in which he made strictures on British seamen, and compared them unfavourably with foreign seamen?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already said, more than once at Question time, what my opinion and the opinion of the whole House is as to the outstanding merits of British seamen.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman made some scathing criticisms of British seamen?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I hold no brief for him, and I emphatically repudiate any adverse criticisms that have been made by anybody, whatever his nationality, on either British seamen or British shipping.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman have these remarks brought directly to the notice of the Seed Shipping Company?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: They can read what has been said, and I see no reason to advertise this particular company.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman also seen the excuse made by this company that they are at present ruled by trade unions, and is he in a position to repudiate this libel also, and to say that the Seamen's Union have always worked very fairly in the interests of the men, and not unfairly against the shipowners?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not read the observations of this gentleman, and, from what I have heard, I do not think that I shall waste any time in reading them.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES BILL.

Mr. LOOKER: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the proposed acquisition by one of the large stores of the business of a well-known drapery establishment and to the fact that it is proposed to pay two directors of the business to be acquired the sum of £25,000 as compensation for loss of office; and will he consider strengthening the Clause inserted in the Companies Bill in Committee providing for disclosure of payments received by directors for loss of office, so that such payments shall not only be disclosed to the shareholders on all occasions but shall also be receivable only when the approval of the shareholders thereto has been obtained?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have seen reports in the Press to the effect mentioned in the first part of the question.
As regards the second part, there will no doubt be an opportunity for considering the Clause, and any Amendments proposed, when the Bill is discussed on Report stage.

Mr. LOOKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the whole question consideration in the meantime, with a view to putting Amendments down.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am doing that, and, as at present advised, I propose to put down an Amendment which will somewhat alter the provisions as they finally left the Committee.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it the intention of the Government to proceed with the Report stage?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, provided we can get the Bill through in a reasonable time, I think the whole House want to see it passed.

Mr. LOOKER: When is the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment likely to be put on the Paper?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will certainly see that any Amendments that I have are put down well before the Report stage, but any Amendments which I put down will be on the lines suggested.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the Report stage is likely to be?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That question must be addressed to the Prime Minister.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: What was the value of the office which these directors are losing, for the amount of compensation largely depends on the value of the office?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Obviously I cannot answer that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CLEARING OFFICE FOR ENEMY DEBTS.

Mr. KELLY: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when investigation was held into the report regarding the conducting of the Enemy Debts Department; and was evidence taken from employés and note made of such evidence?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the memorandum containing allegations in regard to the conduct of the Clearing Office which was forwarded to the Board of Trade by a member of the staff, and in connection with which the hon. Member asked me a question on the 12th June. The memorandum was received on the 11th April, and I instituted the fullest investigation at once. Specific inquiries were made from individual officers so far as it was not possible to deal with and dispose of the allegations by reference to Departmental records, and a note was made of the results. As I have already stated, I am satisfied that the allegations are unwarranted, and I suggest to the hon. Member that if he is not prepared to accept my conclusion, he should, in fairness both to the Department and the officers concerned, frame specific charges in order that they may be answered.

Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not making charges, but charges have been made in his Department, and, if investigation is to take place into serious statements which have been made, will the note of evidence be available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I stated a fortnight ago to the hon. Gentleman that the fullest investigation took place in my Department by the senior officers of the Department. I have been into the matter of this investigation, and I stated to the House that I was satisfied that the charges made were entirely unwarranted, and I stand by that statement.

Mr. KELLY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he took evidence from employed in his Department as to the various charges which were made?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, the hon. Gentleman will understand from my answer precisely what I have stated. It is that in accordance with the regular and proper procedure of the Civil Service, an exhaustive investigation was made by the senior officers of my Department. For that I take full responsibility, and, if any charges are to be brought, let them be made specifically, and let me take the responsibility.

Mr. KELLY: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the date of the appointment of the present occupant of the position of senior accountant of the Enemy Debts Department; and whether he was in the employ of the Government prior to this appointment?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are two senior accountants at present employed in the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts. One was appointed to his present post on 1st January, 1925, after previous service in the Department since 1st January, 1921. Prior to entering the Clearing Office he was not in the employ of the Government, but had acted as Director of the Repatriation Department of the Australian Imperial Force. The other was appointed to his present post on 1st March, 1925, after previous service in the Office since 20th September, 1920-Prior to entering the Clearing Office this officer had held a post in the Ministry of Munitions since June, 1917.

FOREIGN PURCHASES.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General the value of any foreign goods purchased during the last financial year for or on behalf of his Department; and what percentage this bears to the whole?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The value of articles or components of foreign manufacture purchased by or on behalf of the Post Office during the last financial year was £42,802, representing less than one-half of 1 per cent. of the total value of articles purchased.

WELSH BOARD OF HEALTH.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 35.
asked the Minister of Health what saving in expenditure will be realised by the recent reorganisation of the establishment of the Welsh Board of Health?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The saving realised by the reorganisation is £1,628.

Major OWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the action taken by the Minister of Health regarding these institutions in Wales there has arisen in recent years a national party which is growing in strength in consequence of treatment of
this kind in Wales; and is it not a very small sum to save considering that it is likely to bring about similar calamitous results———

Mr. SPEAKER: Could not the hon. and gallant Member make his questions a little shorter?

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman read the various books on national economy?

VALUATION OFFICE (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. FENBY: 43.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the extra work to be entailed in connection with the Inland Revenue Valuation Office in connection with the Eating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill, he can give an assurance that ex-service civil servants now on the joint substitution pool will have first preference for such work?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Yes, Sir, subject, of course, to the possession of the requisite qualifications.

OFFICE KEEPERS, STOREKEEPERS AND MESSENGERS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 46.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of non-ex-service men employed in Government Departments in London as office keepers, storekeepers, and messengers, who were over 65 years of age on 31st March last?

Mr. SAMUEL: The particulars immediately available do not enable me to answer this question, but it is clear that the number of persons answering to the description in my hon. Friend's question must be very small indeed.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not the fact, also, that these men of 65 could not very well serve in the last War?

ARMY CONTRACTS DIRECTORATE.

Mr. THURTLE (for Mr. GARDNER): 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War, seeing that in 1914 the Contracts Directorate included one director, one principal (assistant director), and two assistant principals, with salaries amounting to £3,495, if he will state the reasons
for the increase in the staff, as shown in the Estimates for 1928, to one director, one deputy director, two assistant directors, five deputy assistant directors, and six contract officers, with salaries amounting to £13,458; and, seeing that the cost of the entire staff of the Contracts Directorate in March, 1914, was estimated to be £13,395, if he has under consideration the possibility of reducing the estimated expenditure for 1928 of £34,687?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): Any comparison between pre-War and present day staffs based on nomenclature is misleading, since the general post-War reorganisation of the Civil Service introduced new gradings with corresponding rearrangement of duties. The increase in staff of the Army Contracts Directorate is mainly due in the first place to the heavy increase in the number of technical and experimental stores dealt with as a result of the progressive mechanisation of the Army, the introduction of wireless telegraphy and other modern equipment; in the second place to improved methods of costings investigation; and thirdly to the extended system of co-ordination between Departments. On the second and third heads I have every reason to believe that the cost of the increased staff is more than counterbalanced by the economies which they effect. The possibility of reducing staff when such reduction is in the public interest is continually under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ARMY OFFICERS (CHARGERS).

Major CARVER: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for War what allowance is given to mounted officers of infantry battalions in India, other than those of the Indian Army, for the purchase of chargers?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have been asked to reply. No direct allowance is given to these officers, but they are required to maintain one charger only, and are allowed to buy horses from Government at concession rates. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the rules.

Major CARVER: Ought not these officers in India to be granted the same advantages as are enjoyed by officers at home in being allowed free chargers?

Earl WINTERTON: If my hon. and gallant Friend asks me to state my opinion on this question, I can only say that, as I understand it, the situation is the same as it has always been in India in this respect, and without any evidence to the contrary I see no reason for altering it.

STATE RAILWAYS (SWISS CONTRACT).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now aware that the Indian State railways have placed a large order for 27 locomotives with Swiss engineering firms; and whether in this contract any provision is made for the due observance of a fair wages and fair conditions of labour clause?

Earl WINTERTON: I am aware that the High Commissioner for India has placed a large order for locomotives for Indian State railways with a Swiss firm. The contract contains the fair wages clause in the form generally used for Government contracts.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Under-Secretary not aware of the fact that what I have stated in this House is true, and that the Indian State railways have placed an order for 27 locomotives with a Swiss firm? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to raise this matter in the proper quarter in view of the fact that the foreign firms are under-cutting our British engineers? I have been an engineer myself, and I understand the case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!" and "Name!"] You can name me if you like.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must understand that this hour is devoted to Questions and not to speeches.

STATUTORY COMMISSION (EVIDENCE).

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any announcement to make in regard to the taking of evidence by the Simon Commission?

Earl WINTERTON: The House will appreciate that the Statutory Commission
is free, within the terms of the Royal Warrant, to lay down its own procedure. The question of taking evidence in camera having been raised by the Committee elected by the Punjab Legislative Council, the Commission considered it and decided to draw no distinction between it? own Members and Members of the Indian Committees in the matter of the examination of witnesses and access to documents, so that the Commission will treat each Indian Committee, within whose scope the matter in question falls, on equal terms with itself. It considers that the reservation made in the Chairman's letter to the Viceroy of 6th February, which in any event would have been put into effect very rarely if at all, can be adequately secured by the power which rests with the Chairman to protect any witness and by his discretionary power to exclude the Press from the joint sittings when necessary. My Noble Friend, who was consulted, concurred in this decision.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Noble Lord explain why, in view of the fact that we have been told the India Office has no control over the Simon Commission, the announcement of this change of policy has been made through the India Office and not by way of an announcement from the Commission itself?

Earl WINTERTON: It is merely a matter of convenience that the India Office has acted as the channel of information in regard to an answer to a, question. Having been consulted by the the Leader of the Opposition, I wanted, as a matter of courtesy and public duty, to answer the question and give information to the House on behalf of the Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SERVICE PENSIONS.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a man who enlisted in the Army in 1906 and whose present engagement terminates in 1932 will be ineligible for pension on discharge owing to the fact that he has only served 16 years in his present unit, although he will have completed 26 years in all with the colours, 17 of which were overseas?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If my hon. Friend will send me the details of any case in which he is interested, I will let him know how it stands under the Regulations. An answer given without reference to all the facts of the particular case might prove misleading.

Sir C. RAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a man who started his service in the Army and finished his service in the Army, is disqualified for a pension by the mere fact that he spent part of his service in the Air Force?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must have the particular case before me before I can answer that question.

MILITARY TATTOO.

Mr. CROOKE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of arranging for a repetition of the military tattoo in other parts of the country, preferably in Birmingham?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It rests with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in each Command to decide whether, having regard to the training of the troops and the other considerations involved, a military tattoo is practicable and desirable. I understand that in the case of the Southern Command, in which Birmingham is situated, a military tattoo will take place at Tid-worth in August.

Sir C. RAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the superior amenities and advantages of the Devil's Dyke?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to arrange for a different spectacle, in view of the Kellogg Note and its acceptance—something to do with the arts of peace and not the Devil's work of war?

Mr. WELLOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable body of public opinion in Birmingham and district which is opposed to the holding of such a spectacle?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Fortunately, the public appreciate the tattoo.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HERRING FISHING.

Mr. MACLEAN: 12 and 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether any steps are being taken to protect the herring nursery at Loch Striven against the taking of immature herrings; and, if not, whether he is considering the issuing of Regulations for that purpose;
(2) whether he is considering the imposition of a close season for herring fishing in the Firth of Clyde or issuing Regulations for the use of fishing nets with a larger mesh?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): In reply to these questions, I may refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given to him on 21st instant.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. MACLEAN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the applications for small holdings were made by Neil Macdonald and Ewan MacLennan, who were sentenced at Lochmaddy on 14th June for occupying land?

Major ELLIOT: Applications for small holdings were made by Neil Macdonald and Ewan MacLennan to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in May, 1912.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand that applications for holdings which were made by these individuals in 1912 have not been granted, and is the Under-Secretary surprised that these men, who have been held off the land for so many years, should take possession of land? Will the Secretary of State for Scotland take further steps to speed up the work of putting on to the land men who have made applications in 1912?

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member knows that this matter has been frequently the subject of discussion and debate in the House, and he will not expect me to make a statement on it at question time.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does not the reply indicate that these men have a very long standing grievance against the Scottish Office, seeing that they made application in 1912 for small holdings and that
in the year of grace, 1928, 16 years afterwards, they are still without holdings? Have not these men a right to get land?

Major ELLIOT: As to the question of right, it certainly is desirable that they should have small holdings, but, like all these things, this costs money, and arrangements have to be made. As I say, this has been the subject of considerable debate in the House, and it is not possible to go into this question at necessary length at question time.

Mr. MACLEAN: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: These details do not arise from the question on the Paper.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. With all due respect to your Ruling, this matter has been in the hands of the Scottish Office since 1912.

HON. MEMBERS: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. MACLEAN: Mr. Speaker is in the Chair. We do not want half-a-dozen Speakers over there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] These men are now serving a sentence in prison———

Mr. SPEAKER: The original question asked when the application for small holdings was made, and that has been answered; indeed, I think the hon. Member has given the information himself.

Mr. MACLEAN: But you have already allowed supplementary questions upon matters not arising out of the questions asked, and I am asking a question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—relating to these men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Time!"]—who for 16 years have been without land and are now in prison. Surely, we have a right to ventilate this case on the Floor of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: That must be brought up at the proper time, not at Question Time.

Mr. MACLEAN: It has been brought up several times, and no action has been taken.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising from that last point——

Mr. SPEAKER: We must pass on to the next question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LONDON-TILBURY ROAD (APPROACHES AND BRIDGE).

Mr. LOOKER: 18.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the construction of the terminal road bridge and approaches to the London to Tilbury arterial road will be put in hand this year.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): It is very unlikely that the work will be begun this year.

Mr. LOOKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when a deputation visited his Department on this subject, some 18 months ago, a promise was given that this work would be put in hand at as early date, and when may we hope that that promise will be carried out?

Colonel ASHLEY: As my hon. Friend must realise, it is a matter of opinion when an early date materialises.

Mr. LOOKER: The deputation were promised that it would be done in the immediate future.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it affected by the raid on the Road Fund?

LONDON OMNIBUSES.

Mr. HARRIS: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport how many licences for omnibuses to ply for hire on the streets of London originally granted to other proprietors have been transferred or granted to the London General Omnibus Company, who have bought out the interests of the original proprietors?

Colonel ASHLEY: The issue of licences for omnibuses is a matter for the Commissioner of Police, but Regulations have bean made by me under Section 7 of the London Traffic Act, 1924, permitting the London General Omnibus Company, Limited, to operate the journeys over streets unrestricted under that Section formerly run by 210 omnibuses which the company have acquired from other proprietors.

Mr. HARRIS: Does not this prove that this omnibus company has secured a monopoly by buying up all the other lines of buses, as was anticipated by me when the Bill was before the House?

Colonel ASHLEY: They are buying up omnibuses, but they are being run exactly under the same conditions as heretofore.

OMNIBUS FARES.

Mr. HASLAM: 21.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any information respecting increases on fares charged by omnibus companies in consequence of the duty on petrol?

Colonel ASHLEY: My attention has been called to some cases in which omnibus proprietors have imposed additional charges which are alleged to be in respect of duty, but I have no complete information on the subject.

Mr. PALING: Does that mean that in face of the evidence which has been given since the Petrol Duty was introduced, and in face of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the public had to be protected, the right hon. Gentleman is not going to do anything?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the Minister of Transport intend to take no steps in cases of this kind?

Mr. HASLAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the profiteering of certain omnibus companies who are issuing special tickets, and does he consider that those tickets represent the just amount of the tax?

Colonel ASHLEY: I agree that in certain cases there has been gross profiteering, and that was referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night.

Mr. OAKLEY: rose
——

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot spend too much time on each question.

CANAL BRIDGES.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received the recommendation of the Association of Midland Local Authorities Conference that a scheme should be instituted to provide financial assistance to local authorities who may be involved in the maintenance of canal bridges; and if he proposes to deal with the matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: I received a deputation last November from the Association of Midland Local Authorities, on the subject of weak bridges in the ownership of railway and canal companies. As I
stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Warrington (Captain Reid) on the 20th of March last, I am setting aside during the current financial year a sum of £250,000 to be distributed by way of special grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of the reconstruction of weak railway and canal bridges, and the construction of bridges to replace level crossings on important roads.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES (CLIFTON HAMPDEN).

Captain RONALD HENDERSON: 19.
asked the Minister of Transport the cost of transmitting electricity from Didcot to Clifton Hampden, crossing the River Thames by overhead and underground lines, respectively?

Colonel ASHLEY: I understand that at the inquiry held into this application the applicants stated that they estimated that the cost of crossing the River Thames by underground lines would be about £550 more than by overhead lines.

Captain HENDERSON: Is the Minister aware that this decision will throw extra expense on people who require electricity, and will also lead to considerable disfigurement of the Thames through the use of overhead wires, which involves the erection of considerable apparatus, of poles, and so on?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. It is because I wish to avoid the disfigurement of the Thames that I insisted on the lines being carried underground. As to the increased cost to the consumer, the amount I mentioned is infinitesimal compared with the whole cost of the undertaking.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

ISLE OF MAN (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION).

Mr. DAY: 24.
asked the Postmaster-General whether any decision has been arrived at with reference to laying a submarine cable for telephonic communication between the Isle of Man and the mainland?

Viscount WOLMER: I am not able to add to the information contained in my reply of the 12th instant to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. DAY: Can the Assistant Postmaster-General say what is holding up this matter?

Viscount WOLMER: I can only say that the matter is under consideration. Perhaps if the hon. Member will put another question I may be able to give him more information.

Mr. DAY: If I put a question next week, will the noble Lord be able to answer it?

Viscount WOLMER: I cannot promise the answer for next week.

TELEPHONE; CHARGES, ARGYLL.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will state why 16 guineas per annum, in addition to all calls being charged for, for a 10-hour service only during six days of the week, is being quoted to a householder at Stracafian, Loch Riddon, near Glendaruel, Argyll, as the lowest cost of a telephone; and whether, seeing that the telephone line actually passes the house in question by a yard or two, and there is an exchange at Glendaruel, 1¾ miles distant, he will consider abating such charges to a commercial figure likely to promote the extension of the telephone system?

Viscount WOLMER: The terms quoted were for connection to the Glendaruel Exchange, which has only one subscriber, and were therefore based on the cost of providing and maintaining the connection. Night and Sunday service were offered at the usual tariff, that is, £1 a year extra. As subscribers increase the charges will be reduced proportionately, and when there are eight subscribers service will be given at the £8 a year rate, plus excess mileage. In the case of such very small exchanges as Glendaruel my right hon. Friend could not justify incurring deficits which would fall on the taxpayer or the general body of telephone subscribers.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Noble Lord not aware that just because there is only one subscriber in this area he needs the telephone all the more?

TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS' CALLS.

Mr. GROVES: 25.
asked the Postmaster-General what steps are taken by his Department to meet the claims or suggestions
of any telephone subscribers who may have had a check taken upon their out-going calls and whose figures differ materially from those of his Department?

Viscount WOLMER: If a telephone subscriber represents that the Post Office record of the number of local calls made on his telephone is in excess of that shown in his own record, the registering apparatus at the exchange is specially tested. The records are also carefully scrutinised to ascertain if any error has been made in transcription or computation. If a defect or clerical error is found, a suitable allowance is, of course, made.

Mr. DAY: Is a subscriber given an opportunity of knowing when this test will take place, so that he is able also to make a test from his end?

Viscount WOLMER: The meter that calculates the number of calls is at the exchange and not at the subscriber's end.

Mr. DAY: Is not the subscriber given an opportunity of knowing when the test is taking place, so that he can test the calls that pass from his end?

Viscount WOLMER: I do not quite follow the hon. Member. The number of calls by each subscriber is calculated by a machine which is at the exchange. If a subscriber who keeps a record of his own calls alleges that the machine is not working properly, the machine is specially tested by a qualified engineer.

Mr. GROVES: Is it not a fact that the Post Office takes up the position always that their method is infallible and that the method of any subscriber is fallible, and is he aware that negotiations between his Department and the West Ham Corporation Electricity Department brought to the notice of the Department obvious discrepancies, and that the reply given was that their machinery was perfect?

Viscount WOLMER: The Post Office does not claim to be infallible, although it is true that we have denied that the West Ham Board of Guardians is infallible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the machine count up the wrong numbers and charge them to the subscriber?

Viscount WOLMER: No, there is an apparatus for obviating that.

Mr. GROVES: In case of any misapprehension, I did not mention the West Ham Board of Guardians, but the West Ham Electricity Department. I hope it will not be misunderstood.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (VILLAGES).

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: 26.
asked the Postmaster-General how many villages have been called upon, in the past three years, to give guarantees for the provision of public telephones, the total amount of such guarantees, and the sum of money relating to them actually paid by such villages?

Viscount WOLMER: During the last three years 268 new guarantees, amounting in the aggregate to £4,994 a year, have been entered into for public telephone call offices in rural districts; and since the respective call offices were opened, the guarantors have been called upon to pay £2,827. Statistics are not available of the number of cases in which guarantees were suggested but not given.

Sir D. NEWTON: Is the Noble Lord aware that the heavy guarantees, which are frequently called upon, tend to discourage applications for telephones, and will he be prepared to consider sharing the risk and part of the guarantee?

Viscount WOLMER: The Post Office is not allowed to share the risk. If my hon. Friend thinks an excessive guarantee has been asked in any particular case, I shall be pleased to go into the matter with him.

Major COLFOX: Who is it who prohibits the Noble Lord from sharing the risks? Surely he and the Department make rules for themselves.

Viscount WOLMER: The Post Office is under an obligation to run the telephone service at a profit.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Does the Post Office take any steps to bring to the public notice the possibility of more telephonic communication?

Viscount WOLMER: The telephone service is advertised at Post Offices.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is the Department not trying to run the telegraph service at a profit?

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is in a position to state the terms of reference to and the membership of the committee to investigate the question of technical education for young men about to enter business?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to the arrangements for carrying out this inquiry. I will let my hon. Friend know as soon as matters are further advanced.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

Mr. WELLOCK: 37.
asked the Minister of Health if in view of the fact that the rate of house building since October last is 50 per cent. lower than that of the preceding 12 months, even omitting the boom month of September, 1927, he will endeavour to stimulate confidence in local authorities in the preparation of large-scale housing schemes by promising to retain the present subsidy for a period of at least two years?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to a somewhat similar question by the hon. Member for Bermondsey West (Dr. Salter) on the 10th ultimo.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the position is very serious in regard to the proportion of houses being built to-day as compared with twelve months ago; and does he not think that something should be done to restore the confidence of local authorities?

Sir K. WOOD: The latest figures indicate that the rate is increasing.

Mr. WELLOCK: Are not the latest figures 50 per cent. lower?

Sir K. WOOD: As the hon. Member knows, the reason for that is the abnormal rate of building during certain periods of last year. I may say that the rate of building, at any rate, compares very favourably with other years with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is it not the case that from early in 192G to September, 1927, the rate of building increased from 11,000 to 18,000 per month, and from October last to May this year the total has been between 6,000 and 7,000.

Sir K. WOOD: That may be so and there are special reasons for that. I think the rate is increasing again.

Oral Answers to Questions — RECONSTITUTED AND SYNTHETIC CREAM BILL.

Mr. LOOKER: 39.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government will give facilities for passing the Reconstituted and Synthetic Cream Bill into law this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): In view of the pressure of Government business, I regret that I see no prospect of special facilities being found for this Bill this Session.

Major COLFOX: Does the Prime Minister not realise that there is a strong demand in the country for this Bill as a protection for the consumer against substitutes which profess to be cream?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but even that will not give us more time than we have.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL PRICES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 40.
asked the Prime Minister what instructions have been given to the Government directors on the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's board with reference to a proposed increase in petrol prices?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): As has been frequently stated in the House, His Majesty's Government are under obligation not to interfere in the commercial management of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am aware of that, but does that prevent us from making representations through these directors if there is evidence of an agreement among the oil companies artificially to raise the price against the consumer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I really do not think that it would be to the general
advantage for me to deal with a hypothetical situation which has not yet arisen.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman been made aware of the fact that there is an admitted over-production of oil, and yet there is a great deal of talk about putting up the price?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Naturally, I give what consideration I can to these matters, but, in the main, the world price—which is the dominant factor in our affairs-is not settled by representatives of this country. I should, however, prefer not to attempt to make a forecast of what the course of events will be.

Mr. HARRIS: Do the Government directors make regular reports to the Government as to what is happening on the Board?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Naturally, their duty is to keep in the closest touch with the Treasury and the Admiralty.

Mr. THURTLE: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the Government, as shareholders, have the right to make suggestions as to policy, to the two directors on the Board?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have the right and the duty to keep in the closest touch with our representatives, but we are nevertheless under the obligation, which has been recognised by successive Governments, not to interfere in the commercial management of the company, and that position, undoubtedly, could not be infringed without infringing the rights of non-official shareholders in the company.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL SALARIES

Mr. THURTLE: 41.
asked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take, if any, to ascertain the general desire of the House in regard to the question of a reconsideration of Ministerial salaries.

The PRIME MINISTER: The usual steps.

Mr. THURTLE: Do I understand, from the right hon. Gentleman's reply, that he proposes to take a vote of the House on this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: That raises another question altogether. I have answered the hon. Member's question.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the interest that is taken in this matter, take a vote of the House upon it before he takes any action?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must await the results of the usual steps.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does not the Prime Minister think it ridiculous that a country which cannot afford to pay its workers——

Mr. SPEAKER: This really is not the time to investigate the thoughts of Ministers, but the time to get answers about facts.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising from the reply of the Prime Minister, does he not think it ridiculous that a country which cannot afford to pay its workers a living wage is going to pay high salaries to officals——

Mr. SPEAKER: rose
——

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. I understand perfectly well that, if you say it, we shall never be in order at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must be the judge of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL IMPORT DUTY.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider making up the loss of revenue incurred by the remission of the duty upon kerosene by increasing the duty upon oil from Russia?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion is not a practicable one.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Shall we have an opportunity of discussing this matter at any time?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I really cannot advise my hon. and gallant Friend exhaustively on that point, but very many hours were given yesterday to the discussion of this duty, during which, unfortunately, we did not have the advantage of my hon. and gallant Friend's observations.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that private Members may not advocate the increase of any duty?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is so, and I should be the last to wish to extend their privileges in that respect. Nevertheless, in these discussions, certain correlative considerations and contingent possibilities can usually be raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUTIABLE ARTICLES (PASSENGERS).

Mr. DAY: 44.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will publish the conditions under which Customs officers are empowered to authorise and pass, free of duty, limited quantities of dutiable articles brought by passengers arriving in this country from abroad, which articles are intended for the passengers' personal use?

Mr. SAMUEL: The chief conditions under which Customs officers may pass free of duty limited quantities of dutiable articles brought by passengers arriving from abroad are that such articles must be for the personal use of the passenger, and must be duly declared and produced. Information to this effect is included in the notice to passengers on the subject issued by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman have that notice published at the ports where passengers arrive, so that they may understand exactly what they can bring in?

Mr. SAMUEL: Lately that practice has been followed, and notices are exhibited in public places on most of the Channel boats.

Mr. CRAWFURD: In the case of articles which are allowed free entry by the Customs officials, is it clear that at no future date can the entry of these articles be made the subject of a penalty?

Mr. SAMUEL: If the articles come within the exemption regulations, of course they cannot be made the subject of a penalty.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The question on the Paper relates to articles which normally come within the quantities allowed free entry, and my supplementary question is
as to whether, in the case of an article which at that time or subsequently is declared dutiable, if free entry is allowed by the Customs authorities, it is clear that on no consideration can a penalty be imposed in reference to those particular articles?

Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member will look at the supplementary question, he will see that it contains a number of hypotheses. I have given an answer to the direct question on the Paper, and, if the hon. Member will look at that answer, he may find that it covers some of the points that he has raised in a hypothetical form.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR-LAW INSTITUTIONS (PENSIONERS).

Mr. SHEPHERD: 45.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received from the Darlington Board of Guardians a resolution asking that the Old Age Pensions Acts should be so amended as to make provision for the guardians to draw the pension in respect of any old age pensioner maintained in a rate-aided institution for so long as the person may remain chargeable to the said guardians; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that the Minister of Health has received a copy of a resolution of the Darlington Board of Guardians in the sense indicated in the first portion of the question. As regards the second portion of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas) on the 25th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. OLIVER: Can the hon. Gentleman's Department justify the putting of local authorities to the expense of maintaining the old age pensioners that are in an institution of this kind?

Mr. SAMUEL: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Anglesey on the 25th June.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a large amount of feeling on this matter among the municipalities up and down the country?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR INVENTION AWARD (INCOME TAX).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 47.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on what authority Income Tax was deducted from the award of £8,000 awarded by the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors to Mr. Martin Hale, seeing that Mr. Martin Hale had expended a sum exceeding the sum awarded in law costs, and that a firm incurring legal expenses in the collection of a debt is exempted from Income Tax in respect of those expenses; and why, in addition to the Income Tax deducted, claims for Super-tax on the award are now being advanced against Mr. Hale?

Mr. SAMUEL: Income Tax was deducted from the award to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 21 of the General Rules in the Income Tax Act, 1918. As regards the second part of the Question, Super-tax is chargeable on the total income of an individual as computed for Income Tax purposes, including income which is chargeable to Income Tax by way of deduction.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it a fact that Income Tax is not levied against a firm which has to pay legal expenses in connection with the collection of debts? I do not think that that part of the question is covered by my hon. Friend's answer.

Mr. SAMUEL: That is another question, but I have no doubt that, when the Income Tax in respect of this gentleman was computed, all the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend were taken into consideration.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Was alowance made for this gentleman's legal expenses in patting forward this claim?

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot answer that question specifically, but I have no doubt that, when the amount assessable to Income Tax was fixed, all these claims were considered by the Income Tax officials, and that, if they were allowable, the were allowed.

Major COLFOX: Surely, such payments might legitimately be considered to be capital sums and not income, and, therefore, free of tax?

Mr. SAMUEL: The whole case was governed by the provisions of Rule 21 of the General Rules in the Income Tax Act, 1918, and we are bound to carry out the law.

Mr. MACLEAN: Did the Income Tax Commissioners look upon this sum as being income for the year, or was it spread over several years?

Mr. SAMUEL: That I could not say without notice.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much of this £8,000 Mr. Hale got, and how much the Treasury got?

Mr. SAMUEL: That, again, I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Sir THOMAS DAVIES (for Viscount SANDON): 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he proposes taking as to the submission recently made to him on the subject of the composition of the exhibitors' representation on the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association has recently considered the exhibitors' representation on the Advisory Committee, and that, after consultation with their branches, the council have passed a resolution containing certain recommendations. I have not yet received this resolution; but as soon as I receive it, which I assume I shall do at an early date, I shall at once give careful consideration to any proposals contained therein.

Mr. DAY: Will any further statement on behalf of the cinematograph exhibitors be made to the Advisory Committee and certain other branches of the trade besides the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot make any statement until I have received the report of the Exhibitors' Association.

Mr. DAY: Do I understand the figure the right hon. Gentleman refers to is that recommended by the Advisory Committee or the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The position is that, under the Act, I appointed a Committee. That Committee was appointed for a fixed term. I understand representations are going to be made by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association as to the constitution of the Committee. I have not yet received those recommendations, and therefore I cannot express any opinion upon them.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive recommendations from other exhibiting societies and organisations besides the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am always ready to receive recommendations from any person or society, but I cannot announce what action I shall take until I have had a full opportunity of considering the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister state what business he proposes for Thursday?

The PRIME MINISTER: Debate on a Motion to set up a time table for the remaining stages of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Rabbits Bill, and Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Bill; Second Reading of the Administration of Justice Bill (Lords); Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution, and other Orders.

SERVANTS' CHARACTERS ACT (1792) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Servants' Characters Act, 1792," presented by Mr. Erskine; supported by Mr. Gates, Sir George Hamilton, Major Malone, and Mr. Otho Nicholson; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Rubber Industry Bill): Mr. Atkinson, Major Broun-Lindsay, Sir Henry Buckingham, Mr. Campbell, Sir Burton Chadwick, Captain Garro-Jones, Mr. Gibbins, Mr. Groves, Mr. Hacking, Mr. Hardie, Lord Huntingfield, Mr. Lunn, Brigadier-General Makins, Mr. Ramsden, Mr. Earner, Mr. Shinwell, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, Mr. Luke Thompson, Mr. Waddington, and Sir Thomas Watts.

Report to lie upon the Table.

CLEETHORPES URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

West Hartlepool Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

Bankers (Northern Ireland) Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Plympton St. Mary Rural District Council Bill—[Lords],

Lewes Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Barton-upon-Irwell, Bollington, Bradford, Bury, Cambridge, and Darlington." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords].]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bury, Derby, Maryport, Somerset, and West
Riding of Yorkshire." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Bill [Lords].]

Also, a Kill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bedwellty, Brighton, Mid Glamorgan Water Board, Scarborough, Stafford, and Swansea." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [Lords].]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Board of Trade relating to the rate of royalties on mechanical contrivances for the performance of musical works." [Copyright Order Confirmation (Mechanical Instruments: Royalties) Bill [Lords].]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable Osmond Elim d'Avigdor Goldsmid to surrender his equitable life interest in the Goldsmid Settled Estates or in parts thereof to the persons entitled in remainder or reversion expectant on his death, notwithstanding a provision for cessor on alienation of such life interest contained in the settlement of the said Estates, and to facilitate the re-settlement of those Estates." [Goldsmid Estate Bill [Lords].]

Consolidation Bills,—That they propose that the Joint Committee appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session do meet in the Chairman of Committees Committee Room on Wednesday, the [...]th of July next, at half-past Eleven o'clock.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords],—read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Bill [Lords],—read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Bill [Lords],—read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

Copyright Order Confirmation (Mechanical Instruments: Royalties) Bill [Lords],—read the First time: and referred to tile Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

Goldsmid Estate Bill [Lords],—read the First time: and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

So much of the Lords Message as relates to Consolidation Bills considered.

Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Sir George Hennessy.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

BANKERS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 160]

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [25TH JUNE].

Resolutions reported,

UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS.

1. "That the National Debt Commissioners shall, as and when the Treasury request, pay into the Exchequer out of their account of unclaimed dividends, under Part VII of the National Debt Act, 1870, sums not exceeding in the whole one million pounds, and may for that purpose sell any stock standing to the credit of that account."

FINES UNDER ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING ACT.

2. "That all fines imposed in respect of offences under the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, or the Regulations made thereunder, shall be paid into the Exchequer, and any sums so paid into the Exchequer shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund as if they had been paid into the Exchequer under the Roads Act, 1920."

First Resolution agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we have a word of explanation from the Financial Secretary about this Resolution in order to make it clear what is the amount of money involved and whether there is any change in the procedure which has hitherto been followed?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I can explain this matter in a couple of sentences, and that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that I cannot say what amount of money is involved. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will no doubt know that all fines under the Road Acts and Motor Car Acts are passed on to the Exchequer under rules made by the Home Office and that when they reach the Exchequer they all have to be paid over to the Road Fund. Under the Lighting Act of last year, it was laid down that by an Order-in-Council the fines should be paid into the Road Fund. Since that Act was passed, it has been pointed out that it would cause extra
trouble to Justices' Clerks if they had to keep two accounts and also that it would mean an extra expense to the public if two accounts were kept in respect of the same fund. Therefore, by this Resolution we simply seek to do away with the procedure instituted by the Lighting Act of last year and to follow the old and well tried system of paying money into the Road Fund under the older machinery. That is all that happens. It is purely a matter of machinery. All the money will go into the Road Fund, and the procedure will be in the interests of economy and will entail less trouble to Justices' Clerks.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered my question about the amount of money. I know that he cannot prophesy the amount of money that people are going to have to pay in fines for not putting on tail lights, but, if he can tell me the amount that was paid last year, I shall be satisfied.

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot say how much money was paid in fines for not having lights on motor cars. In any case, the amount was quite small.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Further Considered in Committee [Progress, 25th June].

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Duties, drawbacks and allowances on sugar.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:—

In page 4, line 32, to leave out the words "commencement of this section", and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight."

In line 34, to leave out the words "which are", and to insert instead thereof the words "shall cease to be."

In page 4, to leave out from the word "chargeable", in line 34 to the end of the Clause.—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

In page 4, to leave out from the word "shall", in line 35, to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "be at the rate of one farthing per ton."—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I respectfully suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we could have a general discussion upon the points raised in this Clause under one of the Amendments which have been placed upon the Order Paper. Otherwise, I am afraid that it would be very difficult to confine oneself strictly to the specific point raised in an Amendment, and, as the various Amendments overlap to a very considerable extent, I am quite sure that the discussion could be carried on much more usefully if we had a general discussion upon one of these Amendments.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the first three Amendments on the Order Paper really involve one proposition and I think that the course suggested will be convenient. Of course, obviously the discussion cannot be repeated on the Question "That the Clause stand part."

Mr. SNOWDEN: I and my friends are quite agreeable to that course. We will waive the first Amendment and take the second Amendment which will probably lend itself better to a general discussion.

Mr. MACLEAN: It has been mentioned that the first three Amendments are to be taken together in a general discussion. Am I to understand that the fourth Amendment will be taken separately?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not propose to select the fourth Amendment.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask why, Sir?

The CHAIRMAN: I think that, if hon. Members will study the Amendment, the reason will probably occur to their minds.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not always in order to put down an Amendment to reduce a duty that is made upon a particular commodity?

The CHAIRMAN: I think I have said enough as to my decision.

Mr. MACLEAN: I was asking for a further explanation.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that it is not a good thing always to give explanations of a decision.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, to leave out the
words "which are," and to insert instead thereof the words "shall cease to be."
I am glad that we have been able to arrange to have a general discussion upon the second Amendment on the Order Paper. That enables us to deal in one general discussion with all that is implied by this particular Clause in the Bill. It appears to me there are four main points upon which we are entitled to debate this subject. There is, first of all, the general case for the repeal of the Sugar Duty; secondly, there is the question of the remission of a certain portion of the duty in respect of imported raw sugar; thirdly, there is the question of the increased preference granted to Empire sugar, and, fourthly, there is the increased preference granted to home-grown sugar. That gives to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the four main points which the Opposition want to bring to his notice to-day.
I should like to deal, first of all, with the general case for the repeal of the duty altogether. Here is a great opportunity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enlarge the electoral programme upon which apparently he has already embarked in his Finance Bill. There is a series of by-elections at present in the country, and it would be a very great opportunity for him now to make good his promise of sympathy with the re-quest for a reduction of the Sugar Duty if he were able to tell the electors in the by-elections that he was now going to reduce part of this very heavy impost upon an important food of the people. If he is unable to do something of the kind, I am afraid that some of the electors will become a little restive, because he is increasing very rapidly the proportion of indirect taxation. Although I gather that on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill it would not be in order to go into detail or into a technical discussion as to the balance between indirect and direct taxation, it is as well to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if you include the impost which is to be laid upon petrol, upon buttons, and upon enamelled hollow-ware this year, the amount of indirect taxation for which he has been responsible during his term of office runs into many tens of millions and presses very heavily indeed upon some sections of the population.
There are two other points which I might mention in respect of the general case for the repeal of the Sugar Duty. If you really want to help the weekly wage-earner at the present time, you must do something to cheapen his cost of living, because, apparently, it seems hopeless to get out of the present regime an increase in his wages. Taking the record of the last 12 months, on the top of the heavy decrease which took place from 1922 and 1923—with a short break the other way in 1924—and in subsequent years he has lost in weekly wages an aggregate at the rate of £350,000 per week.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): There has been a movement of prices downwards.

Mr. ALEXANDER: In the last 12 months? The Chancellor of the Exchequer will find that in the last 12 months the movement of prices has been very small. If he is talking of the whole period of his office, then he would be making a stronger point. My point is that the decrease in wages which I have quoted is on the top of the heavy decline in wages since 1922. The purchasing power of the people has, consequently, been very seriously decreased. The Sugar Duty at the full rate is now 1¼d. per pound. On every pound of sugar used in every working class home to-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer collects 1¼d. or, rather, he should collect 1¼d., but when he has taken it from the consumer he gives a part of it back to special beneficiaries whom he selects, and although the tax is paid by the consumer it does not all of it reach the Treasury.
There never was a time when there was a stronger case for the repeal of this tax upon the food of the people in the present economic circumstances of the working class population. This is a class of the population upon whom this burden falls most heavily, not only in regard to the actual direct use of sugar, but in the use of other food in which sugar forms an ingredient in its manufacture. We have proved very conclusively in our past experience of this matter that if we can get a cheap raw material in the shape of sugar, without duty, we can increase very considerably those employed in the manufacture of certain foodstuffs, because the
demand for those foodstuffs goes up enormously. When the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) reduced the Sugar Duty considerably in 1924 we found that in the Co-operative section of trade we were able to employ hundreds of extra people in the manufacture of jam, because there was an immediately increased demand for that commodity, a healthy and necessary commodity for the people to many of whom it was too expensive until the Sugar Duty had been reduced. Therefore, there is a very strong case for the repeal of this duty from the point of view of the present economic circumstances and the economic necessities of the people.
It is not only the economic position of the people with which we have to deal, but the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been by any means ungenerous to his special friends in distributing the money which he has had available. He has given practically nothing during his term of office to the people who have to pay the taxes upon their goods. He has given one or two very small things, but in the aggregate he has given nothing of importance. On the other hand, he has given to the Income Tax payer a reduction of one-ninth in his tax, and he has given very considerable relief to the Super-tax payer, although it is only fair to say that he made a little correction in the case of the Super-tax payer by an adjustment of the Death Duties.

Mr. CHURCHILL: To an equal amount.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I doubt whether that will be the final result, upon balance.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The result of the last four years has been to give very considerable relief to the direct taxpayer. Therefore, there is abundant reason at the present time, in view of the economic necessities of the people and in view of the very large amount of relief which has been given to direct taxpayers, that we should now have a concession from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the Sugar Duty. It is not necessary for me to say more on that point, because some of my hon.
Friends will support me, as may be required.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to indicate that he was going to give a very real concession to the consumers by an adjustment of the Sugar Duty which would involve a rebate of one farthing per pound in the duty upon imported raw sugar. He was very proud of the fact that the trade had arranged with him that the whole of that rebate would be passed on to the consumer. Unfortunately, an event occurred for which we were all sorry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable to take part in the Report stage of the Budget Resolution, and, therefore, he has not been able up to the present time to answer the statements which I then made in regard to the way in which that particular matter had been manipulated. It is quite true that for the present the consumers have been given the advantage of the ¼d. per pound upon the retail price of sugar, but we do challenge specifically the statement that they will ultimately hold that farthing reduction. We have not had an answer from the trade, certainly there has been no reply in trade newspapers, or from the Treasury as to whether this farthing is being used to enhance the position of the British sugar refiners. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley indicated quite clearly in the earlier Budget discussions that some information must have leaked out very successfully, as to the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this special concession to the refining industry, because of the movements upon the Stock Exchange in Tate and Lyle's shares. It only requires a plain examination of the market prices of the shares of that concern to see that within a very short period before the Budget there was an increase in the market quotations of these shares from 28s. to 44s., a very good illustration of how information may fly and what use can be made of it by those who think that it is time to realise.

Mr. CHURCHILL: To buy?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The people who sold out at 44s. realised a very substantial sum, and the people who held shares with the knowledge that the price was going to go up because of benefits to be conferred by the Treasury upon the
trade would be very well pleased to be able to sell their investments at a profit of 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. I made a statement that the public were not really getting that farthing. Although I have not the official Report before me, I will take the cases seriatim, from memory. In the "Times" trade supplement, a statement was made that in October, 1027, the British refiners made the largest purchase of Cuban raws at a price of 11s. 7½d. that had been known for a very considerable time in the trade, and when I point out that the price of Cuban raws for many months before was as high as 16s., it will be seen that their coming to buy very heavily at 11s. 7½d. was quite a good thing for them.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Quite right.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Quite right, and no one wishes to quarrel with them on that. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise that I should be the last person to quarrel with wise buying. We should not be as successful as we are in the co-operative movement if we did not have our share in wise buying. I am simply stating the fact from the point of view of the consumer. Very soon after, in the new year, it was quite patent that the suggestion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be giving something to the trade was known, from the movement in shares, and also, I suppose, from the further heavy purchases of Cuban raws.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What was the date, approximately, of the first large purchase?

Mr. ALEXANDER: In October of the previous year. I am giving roughly the date.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Was that the large and exceptional purchase of which the hon. Gentleman is speaking?

Mr. ALEXANDER: That is the large and exceptional purchase, but there were further large purchases, as I am informed. I have not for the second statement the authority of the "Times Trade Supplement" as in the first case, and the first purchase in October could be described as wise buying and intelligent anticipation of market prices, but the later purchases on top of the purchases in 1927,
at a price, not of 11s. 7½d., but gradually rising to 12s., were evidently in anticipation of something that was coining. As a result of the heavy buying, and, I suppose, the consequent result of the clearing of the surplus stocks of Cuban raws, the price rose from 12s. to 13s. 6d., and in February of this year the price of British refined sugar was raised by stages from 28s. 9d. to 30s. 9d., and it was only a day or two before the Budget that the price of British refined was reduced, not 2s., which it had risen, but 6d., and so at the date of the introduction of the Budget the price was 1s. 6d. above that ruling early in February.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What was the exact date?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Two or three days before the Budget the price went down from 30s. 9d. to 30s. 3d. Thus it will be seen that the trade and the consumers had been paying an increased price for round about two months before the actual introduction of the Chancellor's Budget proposals, and it was quite easy in the circumstances for the trade to come along and say to the Chancellor, "If you will give us this concession of ¼d. per lb. upon Cuban raw sugar, we will promise to give the whole of that to the consumer." Either by intelligent anticipation, or very good information as to what was going to happen in their case, they had been able to anticipate and take a considerable proportion of their profits—profits unjustified, having regard to the large purchases made in the previous year, as well as at the beginning of this year. It is significant that when catechising the Financial Secretary, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon the Budget Resolutions, the Financial Secretary produced a letter from the trade, or, I gather, there were two letters, one from each of the two principal firms—in fact, there are only two British firms in the British sugar-refining industry—undertaking not to increase prices in any circumstances within three months after the Budget. They had had nearly two months of increased price for their stock of raw material, so that they could do that without very much difficulty.
In the meantime, what do we see? It was one of my hon. Friends who said on the Budget Resolution that, as a result
of this preferential treatment to a section of the trade, the tendency would be to create a monopoly for British refined sugar. I do not say that a monopoly has come, but there is nobody who has been in touch with the sugar market since the Budget who does not know that there is a danger of monopoly coming. There has been practically no business at all since the Budget in imported refined sugar. I suppose some of those people from whom we import sugar may want to buy something we make in this country, and if they do not sell us sugar they may not be so inclined to buy things back from us. I have seen the figures, and I do not forget that, while nobody values more than do we upon these benches whatever trade we do within the British Commonwealth of Nations, we have to remember that roughly 60 per cent. of our exports go to other countries, and a very valuable part of the export trade is our own production. If that is the position, we are likely eventually to be at the mercy of the people who are being given this control, and I would beg of the Chancellor to take these facts into account, and also see if he can answer the particular case I have put.
Let me remind the Chancellor that be cannot say this afternoon there was not foreknowledge of what was going to happen, because if he says so, we shall ask, how was it that the Queensland industry knew what was going to happen? There was the squabble between the two sections of the industry as to what should be the degree of polarisation at which the exemption of ¼d. should be given. The Queensland sugar industry, weeks before the Budget, withdrew from the Empire Federation, because, apparently, they were not to get the rebate because they were polarising at 99 degrees instead of 98, and it was only at a later date, before the introduction of the Budget, that an agreement was arrived at between the sugar industry and the Queensland people that the polarisation should be 99 instead of 98. So that they had come down to the discussion of the details, and were anticipating clearly what the amount of relief was to be. I think it is quite clear that the sugar-refining industry in this country is getting away with a very good thing, and that the ultimate results to the consumer
of this country, with the exception I have mentioned, will almost amount to nil. The real intention of the Chancellor—and I say this quite deliberately—is not to benefit the consumer by this manipulation of the duties, but to make some amends to the British sugar-refining industry for the very severe handicap that it has suffered because of the heavy subsidy to the British home-grown sugar industry. So much for the remission of the ¼d. upon raw sugar.
What about the increase in the preferential rate? I have been rather surprised during the progress of this Budget through Committee that more attention has not been called to what is happening in this matter. It is only by a careful study of the details set out in the Schedule to the Bill that one realises what changes are taking place. I pick up the Finance Act, 1924, for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) was responsible, and, looking at the Schedules dealing with the Sugar Duty there, I find that on all classes of sugar upon which Customs Duty was leviable, there was also an Excise Duty equal to five-sixths of the whole duty. There has been a very considerable change since then. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making concessions all round, but in the Second Schedule to the present Bill we find that the amount of the preferential reduction has gone up, so that it is now one-half of the whole duty, that is, the Empire sugar producers are to be relieved to the extent of half of the duty. Therefore, nearly ¾d. on every pound of sugar sold to the working-class consumers of this country goes as a bounty or subsidy to the Empire sugar producer. That is the position. It has failed as a tax, but it goes to the Empire sugar producer. I should like the Chancellor to explain that, and let us know whether he thinks that is really a good thing, and, indeed, whether he thinks that all these Empire sugar-producing industries are worthy of support from such a source as that of taxing the breakfast table of the British working people for these industries overseas.
If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the report in the "Times" of 23rd June dealing with the Australian sugar industry, he will have some idea
as to what is the economic condition of the sugar industry in Queensland. I got some idea myself when I was out there in 1926. They have 150,000 tons of sugar surplus for export. The export price they can get for that sugar is £12, but so uneconomic is the production of sugar there, that in order to balance their accounts, they have first to prohibit the import of any other sugar into Australia, and, secondly, to charge the home consumer in Australia, not £12 a ton, but £27 a ton, and unless they get that wholly fictitious price of £27, they make a complete loss over the whole industry. For an uneconomic industry of that kind, British working men and women are charged nearly ¾d. a lb. on their sugar, in order to give a bounty or subsidy to the Empire sugar producers from whom we get supplies. I think it is unjustifiable. I believe in developing all we can, in a reasonable way, our relations, trading and otherwise, with the constituent nations of the British Commonwealth, but I protest against taxing the necessities of our working-class people in order to bolster up uneconomic industries in other parts of the British Empire. That is really what the Chancellor is doing by his increase of preferential rates in this regard, and, I venture to say, that had this happened in 1909 or 1910, when be was such a leading authority on Free Trade, he would have been completely shocked at the folly of giving Imperial Preference at that rate.
There is one other point to which I would like to draw attention, and that is that three years ago, in the Finance Act, it was decided to extend whatever preference was granted to Empire-grown sugar, to home-grown sugar, and so the home-grown sugar industry gets the whole relief which is granted to the Empire of 5s. 10d. per cwt. That means that an industry which has already been so much helped that it put the British sugar refiners into serious difficulty, which is getting 19s. 6d. per cwt. by direct subsidy, is to get another 5s. 10d., in addition to extra allowances upon molasses and glucose. If you take the actual price of imported refined sugar to-day, 27s. including the Duty, it means that the net price is 15s. 4d., and the fact of giving another 1s. 6d. or 1s. 7d. to home-grown sugar by this Budget will mean that with the subsidy and special preferential treatment they will be
getting a total subsidy from the State of 128½ per cent. on the present net price of imported refined sugar. That is absolutely unjustifiable.
Hon. Members opposite will say that all parties in the State have supported the proposal to assist home-grown sugar, but we on these benches have made it quite plain that there ought not to be a subsidy of this kind without some measure of control and without a share of the profits which arise from the subsidy and assistance accruing to the State. In the trade columns of the "Times" there are accounts of half-a-dozen of these companies, all of which are making large profits, although it is perfectly plain that they are so uneconomically conducted that if it were not for the subsidy and the preference, everyone of them, except that of Bury St. Edmunds, will be making a loss. Instead, they are distributing bonuses to the shareholders at the rate of 20 per cent. and 12 per cent., writing off large sums, and adding large sums to reserve, at a time when apparently there is no prospect that we shall ever succeed in establishing a sugar beet-growing industry in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would meet all our difficulties if he would respond to what must be the beatings of his own heart, his sympathy with the consumer, and repeal the tax in its entirety. He has expressed the opinion that sugar is the first commodity from which the tax should be repealed——

Mr. CHURCHILL indicated dissent.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Well, at any rate, he regards sugar as being more urgent than many other things. He would meet a great deal of our difficulties if he would repeal this Duty entirely. If he does not then I say that kind of manipulation which has been practised in this Budget is unjustifiable. Special relief to this class of beneficiare, another relief to another class, and all the time taking the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers in order to do it. It is fundamentally unsound to tax the consumer in a way in which the yield of the tax does not reach the Treasury.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Everyone knows that the hon. Member and some of his friends, including the most influential, view with a critical if not an hostile eye the development of Imperial
preference which has been undertaken during the last 10 years with the general and overwhelming assent of the great majority of the people of this country. We are also aware of the repeated pledges which have been made on behalf of the next Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Socialist Government, to the effect that all ii direct taxation is to be swept away, including particularly the taxes on tea and sugar, and that the sum is to be made good by an increase in direct taxation; through increases in Income Tax, Super-tax and Death Duties. I do not think we need go into these matters this afternoon. If it so be that in a year from now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has so changed his situation and is sitting here——

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now opening up an argument which I shall not be able to prevent other hon. Members from following.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With great respect, I was not intending to stray from the question as to whether the Sugar Duty should be repealed or not, but when we are confronted with definite proposals for the repeal of that duty, I submit that I was in no way transgressing the limits of Debate in indicating that that might lead to serious inconveniences in other directions.

The CHAIRMAN: All Ministers in their ardour for their cause unconsciously widen the bounds of discussion. Other hon. Members cannot be stopped from following them, and it is therefore necessary to utter a word of warning at the first possible moment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will follow any guidance which you may think good enough to give me, and will confine myself to saying that should the right hon. Member for Colne Valley be called upon to assume this responsibility in a short space of time, we shall watch with the greatest care whether he will be able to carry out the pledges which have been made on his behalf and repeal the duty now under discussion, and other duties which have been mentioned. We are also aware of the doubts which have been expressed in some quarters about the policy of encouraging the development of the sugar-beet industry in this country, and I am sure that it is easy
to make a serious case against it. At the same time, there is a tremendous case to be made for it as an experiment. It was an experiment approved by the party opposite and carried out by us, and it has not yet been completed. Heavy expenditure has been incurred by the firms which started the industry at the outset and, undoubtedly, they are being rewarded and getting back their capital expenditure and outlay. It is part of our policy that they should be prosperous and that others should be encouraged to imitate their example, so that the industry will take root. Whether it will or not is unknown. Whether we have really lit a new fire which will warm British commercial and economic interests, or whether we have just lit a bonfire which will blaze away only so long as the material lasts and then die out, cannot yet be known.
But the bounty has been reduced already as a first step, and in this year I am counting upon that in my calculations. As far as I am aware the industry is holding its own vigorously. Whether it will reveal qualities of permanent survival, it is not yet possible to foretell. It is an experiment, a costly one, but one which, if it succeeds, will add an entirely new feature to agriculture and industry in this country.
But these matters, to which I do not propose to address my attention this afternoon, are matters of general interest, and I would rather deal with the more specific matters referred to by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) with a great deal more moderation than was practised in the House or out of it by his Leader, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley. Let us see what the right hon. Gentleman said to his own constituents on the 1st May:
This plan between Mr. Churchill and the sugar refiners has been concocted during the past few months and preparations made for it in order to bamboozle the public. The shares of one of the refining companies rose some weeks ago. This was on the knowledge these people had of what Mr. Churchill was going to do. £2,500,000 has been added to the ordinary shares of that one sugar refining industry during the last six weeks.
That statement contains a number of extremely offensive aspersions and charges which I believe, which I am sure, are
quite untrue. In view of the fact that these allegations have been revived to-day by the hon. Member for Hillsborough, the Committee will wish me to enter upon the topic with some explicitness. The right hon. Gentleman said that a plan has been concocted "to bamboozle the public," and that I am a party to that plan. I give the House my assurance that there is absolutely no truth in it. When I make that statement I expect hon. Members to believe it, When other hon. Members make statements I believe them, unless other facts are brought to our notice which make it, unhappily, impossible to accept them. I took no part in the negotiations with the sugar refiners except that I saw them a year ago when they came in a deputation to me, and I must say that they impressed me with the fact that we were doing them an injustice; that the working of Imperial preference and the beet subsidy were, in fact, putting them in a very invidious position.
After that I never saw them in any negotiations. They were conducted by the Board of Customs and Excise, who informed me that proposals were being made to them which would have the effect of procuring reductions in the price of sugar greater than the corresponding loss to the Revenue. It occurred to me that this might be a feature which I could use in connection with the proposed duty on oils in order to relieve some of those who would be prejudicially affected by the taxation of kerosene, and also that there was an opportunity to rectify what undoubtedly was a case of real hardship and injustice to an important British industry, brought about directly by the Government's entry into the field of competitive production. But I confined myself to reading the reports which were submitted to me and took no part whatever in the discussions on this matter until the very latest period before the Budget was finally settled.
A few days before the actual date of the Budget I saw articles appearing in the newspapers criticising the proposals which had been put to me from the Board of Customs and Excise, and it was evident that those who were circulating these articles and paragraphs were fully acquainted with the plan which the Board of Customs and Excise had discussed with the Sugar Refiners' Associa-
tion. I was offended at this and considered very carefully at first whether I would not delete the project altogether from the Budget. I raised the question de novo with the Board of Customs and Excise and said that there appeared to be a leakage of confidential information which was very unusual in regard to the many people we have to consult when preparing a Budget, and that if that were so and there had been an improper use made of this information, I should not allow this proposal to appear in the Budget.
I received what appeared to me to be quite conclusive answers, not only to the attacks made on the merits of the policy, but on the specific point of behaviour into which I was inquiring before I was committed to the proposal that I made to the House when the Budget was opened. When I decided to put this proposal in the Budget, it was with the full knowledge of all that could be said against it and after having previously examined the question of whether those with whom we had negotiated had been guilty of improper disclosure of confidential information. I am quite sure that the parties with whom the Customs and Excise were dealing were not those responsible for this matter becoming, as it did, very largely public property. The Refiners' Association, of course, are only one of the interests involved in this matter. The proposal had its reaction on other sugar interests, and the Customs advised the refiners to get into touch with representatives of home-grown sugar and Empire producers in order to arrive at a scheme acceptable to all. How could they avoid doing that? Surely it was necessary for them to try to present a scheme for the acceptance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to be able to say that behind it all the varied interests were ranged and that there was general agreement.
They took this step, and the proposal of the Refiners' Association consequently became known to a considerable number of people, including the London representatives of the Mauritius and Queensland producers, who had to communicate with their clients abroad. On 6th March the Customs received a deputation from the Sugar Federation of the British Empire, and very soon after there
appeared in the Press a cable from Queensland to the Agent-General objecting to the proposals of the Federation and resigning from it. At this time the general nature of the proposals of the refiners was known throughout the trade. What was only a matter of surmise, which was not unattended with very great risks, was whether in the ultimate result I should accept this scheme which had been negotiated by the Customs, or whether I should reject it.
I do not see how it was possible for the refiners to avoid consulting these other interests. Observe that they were consulting interests other than their own, which in important respects were adverse interests; and it was these adverse interests which began the agitation and sent round carefully prepared articles to the various newspaper offices and generally endeavoured to prejudice the proposals. I do not myself see how blame can be attached to the interests which were in favour of the proposal because in the process of consulting other interests, which were adverse, the matter became public property. I am satisfied myself that it was not through any breach of confidence on the part of the British refiners that the matter had become public property.
Now I come to the more serious allegation, lamely, that the reduction in the price of sugar which has taken place since the Budget—which the right hon. Gentleman opposite on 25th April said would not take place but which did in fact take place—is not a real reduction, but is a mere pretence, that the price had been worked up beforehand to an artificial level, and that it was a very cheap concession for the refiners to make a reduction after having carefully prepared an increase for the purpose. I do not think that that is true. I am advised by the Customs that it is not so. I take full responsibility for everything that I say and I do not base myself upon any authority but my own. Nevertheless, in dealing with these intricate matters, in examining the movements of prices and so on, naturally I fortify myself with the advice of my experts. I am advised that it is not true to say that there was any such artificial rise, that the prices were put up in order that the Exchequer might be promised a reduction after the measures that they were taking.
If you look over the course of sugar prices from the beginning of 1927 to the present time, it would appear, broadly speaking—and subject to minor fluctuations, which appear over the whole series of years back to 1924—that there has been a steady diminution in the price. In January, 1927, the price of Tate and Lyle granulated sugar was 33s. 10½d. to 34s. 4½d. a cwt. In April it had fallen to 32s. 4d.; in August it was 30s. 10½d.; in January 29s. 10½d.; in February 29s. 4½d.; in March 29s. 1½d.; and in April it rose to 30s. 7½d. I see nothing in those prices to indicate any attempt to create an artificial foundation for a subsequent reduction. Anyone who likes to look will see that the price movements are not beyond the scope or scale of those which usually take place. But it is not only a question of the actual price of refined sugar. The price in this country is governed by the world price of raw sugar, and the important point in this matter is not actual prices, but the relation of the selling price of refined sugar to the raw sugar world price.
I have seen all the figures for the lest two years for Tate and Lyle's sugar. I have been looking down the differences, and they have hardly varied by more than 6d. or 7d. during the whole of this period, from July, 1926, to the present time. In April of 1927 the difference was 17s. 9d.—the margin between the raw sugar c.i.f. and the selling price of refined sugar duty paid. That was on 12th April, 1927. On 2nd April, 1928, it was 17s. 7½d., and on the 16th it was 17s. 6d.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is a little difficult to see how those figures help. The right hon. Gentleman is just giving the margin between the raw sugar price and the refined selling price, based on world level of prices, but can he give the actual purchase prices and selling prices. I have made a specific charge of their having made a purchase at a low price.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am coming to that in a minute. My case is that if you look down the whole of the prices of this firm during the last two or three years, you will find that there has been a steady decline. There is an occasional step back of a 1s. or so, but on the whole there has been a steady decline, and there is no evidence of any attempt to make a rise in price for the purpose
of making a subsequent reduction. That is my first point.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some of the later figures?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The figure in February, 1927, was 33s. 1½d. per cwt., and a year later 29s. 4½d. That is for Tate and Lyle granulated sugar. My second point is that not only has the price steadily declined subject to these minor fluctuations, but that these minor fluctuations are themselves comparable to and connected with similar fluctuations in the price of Cuban raw sugar. Lastly, my point is that the margin between the price at which the sugar has been put on the market and the price at which it is purchased in its raw state in the world market has remained almost entirely constant. I have never attached much importance to the undertaking which these refiners gave, to reduce the price by 2s. 4d. for three months irrespective of world conditions. But they volunteered that proposition. I wished to know what they would do, but I did not specify that particular condition. What I attached importance to was their undertaking that the normal margin between the world price and their selling price shall be decreased by the full amount of the relief which we are giving in the Budget. There you have a standard which can be followed evenly, irrespective of the various movements of price in the world market. Their prices have always been a certain distance above the prices of raw sugar and they are that distance above them still less the amount of the relief in the Budget.
Then there is the question of the large purchases, which are said to have been made, of Cuban raw sugar. Here, again, I am really astonished to know that it is a crime to make purchases in advance. A trade which is serving the country with an indispensable commodity is naturally bound to buy ahead. It cannot be successful unless it does so. How can we say that any firms buying for the English market and consumer are not to be allowed to purchase in the world market on terms as advantageous as they can get? [Interruption.] I am now replying to very offensive charges which have been made, and I do not propose for a moment to allow them to pass without a most complete reply. I can-
not conceive why anyone should not be entitled to purchase freely in the markets of the world and advantageously for their customers. If the purchase is disadvantageous they suffer a loss, but if they are able to make a good purchase of a raw material like that, then if they are still continuing to serve the public on a fair and normal basis, they are perfectly entitled to take advantage of the opportunity. With regard to the abnormal purchase of 150,000 tons of sugar which took place in the autumn of last year, I am advised that it was purchased in October, 1927, long before the Budget changes were thought of.

Mr. ALEXANDER: No.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly as far as I am concerned. I am advised that this amount, which represents not more than 10 weeks' supply, had all passed into consumption before the Budget. So much for this abnormal purchase. It was bought before these matters had reached any decisive stage and was used up before the Budget and it is no good for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to smile sarcastically in face of this overwhelming reply. All these matters will be read and studied most carefully in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If hon. Gentleman opposite are so pleased about it perhaps they will let me continue. It is quite true that further purchases were made in February and March which amounted to 190,000 tons but, as I say, why not? How are they going to carry on their trade if they are not allowed to buy raw sugar in order to be able to supply the public? Why should it be wrong for British refiners to purchase 190,000 tons of raw sugar when at the same time and in the same market the United States sugar refiners bought 370,000 tons? I cannot understand why a matter of this kind should be brought in as evidence to suggest that some plot has been concocted.

Mr. HARDIE: Free Trade principles!

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not contrary to Free Trade principles to buy in the cheapest market. In fact I imagine that if there was one principle which we could take as a prime and paramount principle it would be that. I have dealt with that point but there is one other with which I wish to deal and that is the question
of the rise in the shares of Tate and Lyle——[Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: I hope hon. Members will allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed without interruption.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am really not anxious to arouse feeling but I would remind hon. Members opposite that a number of offensive charges have been made, I am accused of having concocted a plan to bamboozle the public. If I thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite believed that I am bound to say I should treat it even more seriously than I am doing. Nevertheless it has been said in public and I am determined that it shall be answered as far as I am concerned. As to the rise in shares of Tate and Lyle it has been said by the hon. Gentleman to-day that they rose from 28s. to 44s. at the date of the Budget. They are, I believe, 41s. to-day. I am informed that no purchases of their own shares have been made this year by any member of the firm of Tate and Lyle. I am authorised to make that statement. This great firm we are told amounts to a monopoly. It is one of the principal firms—overwhelmingly the largest firm—in the industry and, as I say, no purchases of their own shares have been made by any member of the firm. The only transaction that has taken place has been the sale by Sir Ernest Tale of some shares belonging to his late mother which he had to realise as a trustee. This transaction took place before the rise in the price of the shares and the price realised was 31s. The shares have now risen to 42s. I think that statement disposes of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the rise which followed on the giving of confidential information had put about £2,500,000 into the pockets of this industry.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I said into the pockets of the shareholders.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have the statement here and it is that £2,500,000 had been added to the ordinary shares of that one particular refining industry. I am really surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, with his position and experience, should make so misleading a statement. As a matter of fact the market in fate and Lyle's shares is a
very narrow one and the price responds to very small purchases and sales. The idea that the value of their property has been increased by £2,500,000 as a result of the marking up of these quotations is entirely illusory. If they were to attempt to realise this £2,500,000, which figured so well on the public platform before an audience of course the very first step taken would destroy the value which has since been reached.

Mr. SHINWELL: What are market values?

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to listen attentively. Nothing would be easier than to interrupt in like manner from the other side.

Mr. SHINWELL: What about the other side when they do the same thing? Be impartial.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) to resume his seat.

Mr. SHINWELL: What about what they did to me a fortnight ago?

The CHAIRMAN: I have asked the hon. Member to resume his seat.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I say that when those on the other side do this very thing to me there is no protest from the Chair. [Interruption.] An hon. Member sitting near me says that is a lie. Is it a lie?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will please resume his seat when I request him to do so. When he is called upon to speak, he will have exactly the same protection as any other hon. Member.

Mr. SHINWELL: I rise to a point of Order, Sir. An hon. Member sitting below the Gangway says that the statement I have just made is a lie, and I ask you if that is an expression which should be permitted.

The CHAIRMAN: If any hon. Member addressed another in those terms, of course it was exceedingly wrong, and, if he does it within my hearing, I should have to ask him to withdraw the words.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no wish to detain the Committee unduly, but I desire to reply to the statements which have been made from the other side. I
was saying that if it were true that we, by our action, put £2,500,000 into the pockets of this industry, or of this particular firm, it would equally be true to say that the policy which we have pursued in regard to beet sugar and in regard to Imperial Preference had, since our tenure of office, taken £3,500,000 out of their pockets, because their shares, which now stand at 41s., stood at 54s. four years ago, and they fell from 54s. to 28s. as a result of the very invidious reactions which followed from measures undertaken by the State for quite different purposes. Therefore, I think that when next the right hon. Gentleman visits his constituents and tells them that the Government have handed over £2,500,000 as a special favour to their particular friends, he might, in fairness, state that even on his own unreal hypothesis, they had previously taken away £3,500,000 from the same favoured trade. So much for this aspect of the proposal.

Mr. VARLEY: It is a mere coincidence that the shares may have gone up.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not at all. I said that the firm in question with whom we were negotiating were not responsible for that. That is all I am saying, but there was knowledge and I have explained how the knowledge got about, and that speculators used it and I have explained the effect on the narrow market for these shares. I am defending those with whom we were in negotiation from very gross and wounding and damaging charges which have been brought against them, and which I sincerely believe are neither just nor true.
Let me now explain some of the effects of this step. I am informed that the wages bill of the refiners has been increased by approximately 25 per cent. since the Budget. I do not mean the rate of wages, but the amount of wages paid, and for a full year that means an increase of £300,000 or £400,000. I am informed that the imports of raw sugar during April and May of this year were 116,000 tons greater than in the corresponding period of last year, and that the imports of foreign refined sugar were 46,000 tons less and on the balance 70,000 tons more sugar have been imported into the United Kingdom during those two months. That is a 20 per cent. increase which in a full year would amount to
350,000 tons. The refiners melt has increased by more than 25 per cent., and in a full year that means the use of 100,000 tons more coal and 3,000,000 more jute bags together with a correspondingly increased demand in all the allied trades. A large amount of expenditure has been undertaken or is being sanctioned in alterations and additions to the refineries. I believe that the Greenock refineries, which were closed not by foreign competition but by extraneous circumstances, may shortly re-open. As to the reduction in price about which the right hon. Gentleman was sceptical, the prices were reduced by 2s. 4d. per cwt. on the day following the Budget and a further reduction of 9d. per cwt. has since been made. As I say, I give no guarantee as to the effect of movements in the world market, but I am in possession of assurances from refiners that, while their price movements vary with the movements in the world price, full allowance will be made for the remission of taxation which we have made. That we shall be able to test as time goes on. The only cloud that I can see immediately upon the sugar horizon is that certain retailers are, I believe, consulting among themselves upon the propriety of raising the retail price of sugar in order to increase the margin of profit to the retailer. I do not admit for a moment that anything that has taken place in the Budget has created a situation which would justify an alteration to the detriment of the consumer, and I trust—and I say so not unadvisedly—that the hon. Member who has just spoken and the great co-operative institution which he represents will be forward in assisting the public against being defrauded of the remission in the Sugar Duty which, at the cost of nearly £3,000,000 to the revenue, we have endeavoured to convey to the country.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think the right hon. Gentleman would have served his own interests better if he had permitted this matter to rest where it remained after the Report stage of the Budget Resolution. I am sure no unprejudiced member of the Committee who has heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer would regard his statement as a satisfactory explanation and a satisfactory refutation of the charges made from this side of the Committee. The most audacious of the statements, or excuses, which the
right hon. Gentleman has made, has been his attempt to throw off his own responsibility for what took place before the Budget and to put it on to the shoulders of the Board of Customs and Excise. Did the Board of Customs and Excise enter into these negotiations for the purpose of carrying through a Budget proposal without the knoweldge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I am not asking for an answer.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is: Certainly not.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Very well. The Board of Customs and Excise entered upon thesis negotiations with the knowledge and on the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman has come down here this afternoon to try to rebut a charge that he himself was responsible for what took place in those few weeks before the proposal was made in his Budget in regard to the Sugar Duty by saddling the responsibility upon the Board of Customs and Excise. If I had not heard the right hon. Gentleman make his confession that he was aware of what the Board of Customs and Excise were doing, that they were doing it with his knowledge and on his instructions, the impression would have been left on my mind that he was entirely ignorant of what the Board of Customs and Excise were doing, until they presented to him their memorandum.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I really must answer that. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I said that I took the very fullest responsibility for what had been done. What I meant was that while I authorised these negotiations, I did not concern myself at all with their details; that I authorised the Board of Customs and Excise to ascertain what form such project would take when it had been thrashed out with the parties concerned; and that I myself reserved my power of final decision upon it. I am not attempting to shelter myself behind the Board of Customs and Excise.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman is not now attempting to shelter himself behind what the Board of Customs and Excise do, but that is certainly the only impression that could
have been obtained by listening to the early part of his speech. He began by quoting some remarks which I made in a speech which I delivered to my constituents a few weeks ago, in which I had associated the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself with what took place in regard to the manipulation of sugar prices, anterior to the introduction of the Budget, and then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it was not he who was responsible, that he had had nothing to do with these negotiations, that, as a matter of fact, he had not met these people during the weeks preceding the introduction of the Budget, that he had met them about 12 months before, and that that was the only direct communication which he had had with them. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to get out of a difficult situation by creating the impression that it was not he but his subordinates who were responsible for what took place.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not what I said.

Mr. SNOWDEN: We will let the report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech settle that to-morrow. I am quite sure that what I am saying is what the right hon. Gentleman said, or that at any rate it is the only possible impression that could have been conveyed to his hearers by what he was saying. What is the charge of the right hon. Gentleman? His charge is that I said that the negotiations which had taken place in the weeks which preceded the introduction of the Budget had bamboozled the public.

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the words?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will read the words:
This plan between Mr. Churchill and the sugar refiners has been concocted during the past few months and preparations made for it in order to bamboozle the public.
That is the report of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to which I am taking objection.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I quite admit that the language might have been a little less Churchillian, but every word I said
then I stand by. I say that there were negotiations, the main purpose of which was to enable the sugar refiners to make a pretence of reducing the price of sugar by a farthing per pound in order to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of saying that he had done something, by reducing the duty on sugar, to bring about a reduction in the price of it. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken this afternoon from a brief which it is quite evident has been prepared for him by the sugar refiners. There are two or three outstanding facts in connection with this matter, and it is those facts that will settle whether the right hon. Gentleman is right or whether I and my friends are right. What are those facts? The right hon. Gentleman announced in his Budget speech that this remission of duty upon foreign imported sugar would enable the retail price of sugar to be reduced by a farthing per pound, and he told us that he had an assurance from the sugar refiners that such a reduction in the retail price of sugar would take place. What I had in my mind when I was making that speech, and I think that other parts of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has not quoted would have made that quite clear, was that preparations had been made some weeks before to concoct a plan between the revenue authorities, for whom the right hon. Gentleman takes the responsibility, and the sugar refiners. They had, in other words, been manipulating the sugar market, so that they would be able, without any loss to themselves, to reduce the retail price of sugar by a farthing per pound as soon as the Budget announcement was made.
About the facts of that there can be no dispute whatever. The right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that in October of last year certain sugar refiners made quite unusually large purchases of Cuban raws at a very low price. The right hon. Gentleman admits that several months ago, probably over 12 months ago, he had an interview with the sugar refiners: I think it was in October of the previous year, but, at any rate, about 12 months before the introduction of the last Budget. Now that is when the conspiracy began. It was as a result of the right hon. Gentleman hearing the pitiable case presented by the sugar refiners that, no doubt, instructions were given to the Board of Customs and
Excise that they should go into the matter and that they should prepare a memorandum for the right hon. Gentleman, Therefore it had been known for nearly 12 months that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was likely to do what he actually did. That is why these exceptionally large purchases of sugar were made at such a low price. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make a very cheap debating point by insinuating that we had complained about these business firms buying in a favourable market at a cheap price. Did my hon. Friend say that? Not at all; he said the very opposite. He said that that was good business, and that they had a perfect right to take advantage of the state of the world market in sugar, just as every other trader, if he has any sense, takes advantage of a favourable market and buys on the cheapest possible terms. It is perfectly clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has told us this afternoon that for 12 months the sugar refiners have been manipulating the sugar market in view of what was likely to take place in the Budget of this year. The whole thing hinges upon that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What do you mean by "manipulating"?

Mr. SNOWDEN: By "manipulating" I mean manipulating. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at a dictionary he will find that "manipulating" means working circumstances and opportunities in order to bring about a desired result.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The word "manipulating," used as the right hon. Gentleman used it, means something improper. If he says that the sugar refiners were carrying on their business in a proper manner, I certainly do not differ from him; if that is manipulating the sugar market, they did it; but, if he says that there was an improper conspiracy and that unworthy methods were employed, then I say that that is not the case.

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, I say that it is quite clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has told us this afternoon that it was known for 12 months, or that at any rate it was expected, or hoped—I will make the right hon. Gentleman every possible concession; I will say that it was hoped for 12 months—that something was going to happen, and that
something did happen in the Budget. Therefore, in anticipation of that, they had been preparing the market in order that they might, without any loss to themselves, be able to make a reduction in the price of sugar equal to the amount of the remission of duty. In February, about two months before the introduction of the Budget, the price of sugar was raised. In the course of a few weeks it had risen by about a farthing a pound. Then, two months later, when this reduction was made, they took off that farthing per pound; but that is no loss to the refiners. The right hon. Gentleman said that they had largely exhausted the stocks of cheap sugar which they held, but that purchase of sugar in October of last year to which so much attention has been drawn was not the only large purchase which they had made. The price of Cuban raws, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, rose in the course of a few months by about 2s. per cwt. and they had in the interval been buying at intermediate prices, and undoubtedly they had been refining sugar from raws which had been purchased at the lowest price at which they had bought. They had therefore been manipulating. I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is good business. I do not know that there is anything immoral about it, and I am not complaining about it, but what we are saying is that this had been done not merely to make profits but to put themselves into a position to make that concession which they knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer would insist upon when he made that reduction in the Sugar Duty.

Mr. STORRY-DEANS: Why not?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I thank the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Storry-Deans) for that interjection. He asks "Why not?" In February, they had raised the price of sugar by a farthing per pound; they took it off after the Budget was introduced. The claim of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the claim of the Tory party is, and will be at the next Election, that the alteration in the Sugar Duty made by the right hon. Gentleman has benefited the consumers of sugar by a farthing per pound. Now we have got this point, and it is the crux of the matter, and that is why we say that it was a manipulation, and
that it was bamboozling the public. Knowing that this was to be done, they raised the price two months before without any need, because they were making very big profits at that time, and they could have afforded to reduce the price rather than to raise it, but, in anticipation of what they would be required to do to serve the political interests of the Tory party two months later, they raised the price of sugar by a farthing per pound. Therefore, there was no reduction in April when the farthing was taken off. What they simply did was to restore the retail price of sugar to the figure at which it stood in February.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the point that the ratio between the price of Cuban raw and the British selling price had not been altered during these price changes, and that the margin has been reduced since the tax has been levied?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That has nothing to do with it, because the whole point is not how the world sugar prices have changed since April, but the ratio between the prices for the raw sugar which was refined and the English sugar which was retailed. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that he was afraid that there was a movement on foot by the Retail Grocers' Association to raise the price of sugar, and the right hon. Gentleman insinuated that that would mean so much more profit for the retailers of sugar. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman spoke from a brief prepared by the Customs authorities, shall I say, on information supplied to them very largely by the sugar refiners. I happen to know how these things are done. The right hon. Gentleman insinuated that if the retail grocers succeeded in raising the price of sugar by a farthing, that would mean so much more profit to them. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, his advisers know quite well that the retailers of sugar have been selling sugar at a loss during the last few months.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Are you in favour of it?

Mr. SNOWDEN: We are not in favour of the right hon. Gentleman claiming credit for having reduced the price of sugar, when he has taken it out of the
pockets of the sugar retailers of the country in the first instance, and later out of the pockets of the consumers. Probably the right hon. Gentleman has not time to read the trade papers. If he had, he would have known that for weeks the "Grocer," the organ of the grocery trade, has been full of letters on this subject from retailers. Every letter is like this one:
I would like to ask the Secretary of the Refiners' Association where we can purchase sugar to retail at 3d. per lb. at a profit. On the wholesale price I pay I lose 9d. a bag. I would advise my grocer friends to give up selling sugar and invest their money in sugar refining companies and get 15 per cent.
I have disposed of every one of the attempts at explanation which were made by the, right hon. Gentleman. For 12 or 18 months the sugar refiners of the country had known what was likely to happen. They had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he banded the matter over to the Customs officials. They entered into negotiations—conversations, shall I say—with the sugar refiners, and by February the thing had become so settled that it leaked out. The right hon. Gentleman admits that it leaked out. About that time the sugar refiners regarded the matter as settled, and knowing that they would have to reduce the price of sugar by a farthing, they raised it by a farthing a pound. That is the bamboozling to which I referred. The preparations that were carried on for more than 12 months are the manipulations to which I referred. No amount of figures read from briefs—which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understood for a moment—will alter these bald facts. The bald facts are that there has been no real reduction in the price of sugar, that the temporary reduction of the retail price was simply going back to the price that obtained two months before. Just a word or two about the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Tate and Lyle's shares. The right hon. Gentleman did not deny the fact that the shares rose between February and the introduction of the Budget by 50 per cent.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I stated the figures.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman would never have called attention to that fact if we had not done so. The information leaked out. The right hon.
Gentleman admits it. I always said, in referring to the rise in the price of these shares in the few weeks previous to the introduction of the Budget, that it added £2,600,000 to their nominal capital value; at any rate, it added that to the Stock Exchange value of these shares. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a limited market in these shares, and therefore prices fluctuated.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Small transactions.

Mr. SNOWDEN: But is the statement correct? Did not the shares rise from 28s. to 44s., the figure at which they stood just after the introduction of the Budget? Was not that just the opportunity for that number of people who were able to take advantage of the Stock Exchange movement? There are quite a number of other points which the right hon. Gentleman raised in his speech, about which I might say something, but I have confined myself to dealing with the attempt that was made to discredit some remarks which I made. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the last occasion on which I shall make a similar statement. What I said was perfectly true. May I say, in conclusion, that I do not, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I do, impute anything discreditable to him—not for a single moment. He was playing the political game, and he might have played it successfully if the truth had not leaked out. That was one of the spectacular things of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget; it was the first act in the preparation for the Tory election programme 12 months hence—a reduction of a farthing a pound in sugar! There has been, I repeat, no reduction in the price of sugar. That is the whole point of my observations; it is the whole point of our criticism.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Since when has there been no reduction in the price of sugar?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I will try to put it in words of one syllable, if I can, in order to bring it within the comprehension of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap!"]. Well, I have said it half a dozen times. There was an increase, I said, in February, an increase which was put on in anticipation of the reduction which the refiners knew they
would have to make in April, and if the right hon. Gentleman calls that a reduction, he is perfectly welcome to it. At any rate, we shall miss no opportunity of telling She electors of this country that that part of the Budget was the result of the manipulations which took place for 12 months previously, and that it was nothing but an attempt to bamboozle the public for political advantage.

Mr. TINNE: May we come for a moment from the sugar refiners to see how these duties affect the Colonial producers? The Colonial producers are those who are not, like South Africa and Australia, protected in their own home market. Large Dominion producers of sugar who are contributing to the British market, are substantially protected in their own home markets, Australia by the absolute prohibition of imports and South Africa by a duty of 9s. 6d. per cwt. on refined, and 8s. on other grades, so that their producers have not to look to this market in the same way as the Colonial producer has The Colonies have to export the whole of their production, and they can only look to Canada or She United Kingdom for their markets. The effect of the present preference is as follows. In Canada, the full rate of duty per 100 lbs. is 1.28 dollars. Preferentia duty on Colonial sugar is 28½ cents., that is to say, a preference per 100 lbs. of sugar of one dollar, which, at the exchange rate of 4.88, is 4s. 7d. per cwt. In the United Kingdom the duty per cwt. is 8s. 2d. and the duty on Empire sugar is 4s. 5d. The result of that is that there is preference in favour of Canada at the moment of 10¼d. per cwt. It is that preference which I wish to eliminate, the difference between the preferences in the United Kingdom and Canada, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he cannot do it in this Budget, and presumably that is impossible now, to allow me to stake out a claim for future years that that difference shall be removed and the preferences in Canada and this country made the same.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The Committee have listened with intense interest to the duel between the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman who now holds that post. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt at
length with the statements which have been made in the public Press regarding information which leaked out before the Budget, and I was glad to hear from his lips that he had completely satisfied himself that the information did not leak out from the British refinery industry. The Chancellor took full responsibility for his action, however, and I am bound to add that wherever a Chancellor of the Exchequer, no matter to what party he belongs, operates a tariff, he sets at work all sorts of forces. The Chancellor is directly responsible for this Debate this afternoon. It was he who initiated the policy of subsidies four years ago. This Clause is brought forward solely because the Chancellor started four years ago the costly policy of a subsidy. He seems enamoured of the policy of subsidies. He tried it four years ago with beet sugar, and it has cost many millions of pounds. The public has suffered and he has admitted this afternoon that the refining industry has suffered gravely as the result of his policy.
Two or three years ago he tried a coal subsidy, and this year he is trying a further policy of subsidy. The circle, so far as concerns the subsidy to sugar beet, is now complete, and it has taken three forms, if I may use that term. First, the

expenditure of large sums of public money, with no direct and lasting benefit to the public; secondly, grave hardships to the refining industry of this country; and, thirdly, the present duties which we are discussing. This afternoon he made great play with the fact that as a result of his Budget proposals some £300,000 extra is going to be paid in wages. I have always had an intense admiration for the Parliamentary gifts and the extraordinary audacity of the Chancellor, but he surpassed himself this afternoon, for, having first created this unemployment, he now takes credit for abolishing it. We are indeed glad to see that he has realised the hardships which his policy has created. I fear that on several occasions I have wearied the House by dealing with the position in the town of Greenock brought about by his policy. Greenock has undoubtedly suffered, and although this policy is not the one which I have advocated in the past yet, considering the circumstances, and considering the hardships and the injustices which his policy has created, I welcome it this afternoon.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 126.

Division No. 185.]
AYES.
[5.37 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Buchan, John
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Albery, Irving James
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bullock, Captain M.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Amory, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dawson, Sir Philip


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Campbell, E. T.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Carver, Major W. H.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Astor, Viscountess
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Atholl Duchess of
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Atkinson, C.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ellis, R. G.


Balniel, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. H.
Christie. J. A.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bennett, A. J.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Berry, Sir George
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Fermoy, Lord


Bethel, A.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Fielden, E. B.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cope, Major Sir William
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Blundell, F. N.
Cooper, J. B.
Fraser, Captain tan


Boothby, R. J. G.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Frece, Sir Walter do


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gates, Percy


Briggs, J. Harold
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Goff, Sir Park


Grace, John
Lumley, L. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Grant. Sir J. A.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sandon, Lord


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macintyre, Ian
Savery, S. S.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Hamilton, Sir George
Macmillan, Captain H.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hanbury, C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Shepperson, E. W.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Macquisten, F. A.
Skelton, A. N.


Harland, A.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dins, C.)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Haslam, Henry C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Styles, Captain H. W.


Hills, Major John Waller
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hilton, Cecil
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Sallsbury)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hume, Sir G. H.
Oakley, T.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Penny, Frederick George
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Iveagh, Countess of
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wells, S. R.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Nortbern)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Jephcott, A. R.
Philipson, Mabel
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Pilcher, G.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Power, Sir John Cecil
Withers, John James


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wolmer, Viscount


Lamb, J. Q.
Preston, William
Womersley, W. J.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Radford, E. A.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Raine, Sir Walter
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ramsden, E.
Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)


Loder, J. de V.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Long, Major Eric
Remer, J. R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Looker, Herbert William
Rentoul, G. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Lougher, Lewis
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)



Lowe, Sir Francis William
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Captain Margesson and Major the


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Marguess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gillett, George M.
Lawson, John James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gosling, Harry
Livingstone, A. M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenall, T.
Lowth, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William


Baker, Walter
Griffith, F. Kingsley
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Groves, T.
Mackinder, W.


Barr, J.
Grundy, T. W.
MacLaren, Andrew


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Briant, Frank
Hardle, George D.
March, S.


Bromfield, William
Harris, Percy A.
Morris, R. H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayes, John Henry
Mosley, Oswald


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Murnin, H.


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Naylor, T. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, George Harold


Compton, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, Major G.


Cove, W. G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Palin, John Henry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Paling, W.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dennison, R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Dunnico, H.
Jonas, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Potts, John S.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


England, Colonel A.
Kennedy, T.
Riley, Ben


Fenby, T. D.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ritson, J.


Forrest, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lansbury, George
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)




Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Stamford, T. W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wellock, Wilfred


Scrymgeour, E.
Strauss, E. A.
Westwood, J.


Scurr, John
Sutton, J. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Sexton, James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wiggins, William Martin


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shinwell, E.
Tomlinson, R. P.
Windsor, Walter


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Townend, A. E.
Wright, W.


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Varley, Frank B.



Smillie, Robert
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Snell, Harry
Watson, W. M. (Dumfermline)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MACLEAN: Do I understand that you are not taking the Amendment which stands in my name—In page 4, to leave out from the word "shall" in line 35 to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "be at the rate of one farthing per ton"—I think it is customary when Amendments have not been selected for some reason to be given why they have been passed over.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is the custom for the Chairman to give reasons. I think the Committee will have no difficulty in appreciating why the hon. Member's Amendment has been passed over.

Mr. MACLEAN: I think it is courteous to give the reason why an Amendment which has been put down in all sincerity is not selected. It is an Amendment of some substance.

The CHAIRMAN: I think it would be contrary to precedent for the Chairman to commit himself by giving the reasons why Amendments are not selected.

Mr. MACLEAN: I must take exception to that statement. [HON. MEMBERS; "Order, order!"] On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman——

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to raise a point of Order I will

hear him, but so far he has not raised a point of Order.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am putting a point which I think has some substance in it. I have drafted an Amendment, and I have placed it on the Order Paper, and now, Mr. Chairman, you decline to call it on for discussion. Surely it is only courteous that some explanation should be given as to why the Amendment has not been called on to be debated.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in any way the duty of the Chairman to give reasons for his selection of Amendments, and on this occasion I think the Committee will be able to appreciate the probable reason. I do not want to establish a precedent whereby the Chairman will be bound to give reasons.

Mr. MACLEAN: I quite agree that the Chairman can pass over or jump Amendments, and, if the hon. Members concerned do not raise any objection, then no explanation is required. But surely when an hon. Member does ask for a reason some explanation might be given as to why his Amendment has been passed over.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I cannot admit that proposition.

Mr. MACLEAN: Why?

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 124.

Division No. 186.]
AYES.
[5.49 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.


Albery, Irving James
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bellaire, Commander Canyon
Brass, Captain W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bennett, A. J.
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Briggs, J. Harold


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Berry, Sir George
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Bethel, A.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Buchan, John


Astor, Viscountess
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Buckingham, Sir H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Bullock, Captain M.


Atkinson, C.
Blundell, F. N.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.


Balniel, Lord
Boothby, R. J. G.
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hanbury, C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harnon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Campbell, E. T.
Harland, A.
Oakley, T.


Carver, Major W. H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Penny, Frederick George


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Philipson, Mabel


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Pilcher, G.


Chapman, Sir S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Christie, J. A.
Hills, Major John Waller
Preston, William


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hilton, Cecil
Radford, E. A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Raine, Sir Walter


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Ramsden, E.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Remer, J. R.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rentoul, G. S.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cope, Major Sir William
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ropner, Major L.


Couper, J. B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandon, Lord


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Savery, S. S.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Commodore Henry Doug as
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shepperson, E. W.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lamb, J. O.
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Loder, J. de V.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Long, Major Eric
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker, Herbert William
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lougher, Lewis
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Ellis, R. G.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Storry-Deans, R.


England, Colonel A.
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacIntyre, Ian
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Major A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fermoy, Lord
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Fielden, E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Ford, Sir P. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Forrest, W.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Frece, Sir Walter de
Malone, Major P. B.
Wells, S. R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Gates, Percy
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Withers, John Jamie


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wolmer, Viscount


Grace, John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Womersley, W. J.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nelson, Sir Frank



Hamilton, Sir George
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hammersley, S. S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Captain Wallace and Major the




Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barr, J.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Batey, Joseph
Buchanan, G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Charleton, H. C.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Briant, Frank
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Baker, Walter
Bromfield, William
Compton, Joseph




Cove, W. G.
Ken worthy, Lt.-Cora. Hon. Joseph M.
Sexton, James


Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kirkwood, D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Shinwell, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dennison, R.
Lee, F.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Dunnico, H.
Livingstone, A. M.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Edward, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, T.
Smillie, Robert


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Snell, Harry


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Stamford, T. W.


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gosling, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Strauss, E. A.


Greenall, T.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sutton, J. E.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
March, S.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Morris, R. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tinker, John Joseph


Grundy, T. W.
Mosley, Oswald
Tomlinson, R. P.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.
Townend, A. E.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Naylor, T. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold
Varley, Frank B.


Harris, Percy A.
Owen, Major G.
Viant, S. P.


Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hayes, John Henry
Paling, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Hirst, G. H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Westwood, J.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wiggins, William Martin


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Riley, Ben
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Windsor, Walter


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wright, W.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.



Kennedy, T.
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Increased excise duty on sweets.)

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to raise a point on this Clause which affects my constituency, and a good many other productive factories in other parts of the country. Clause 5 increases the excise duty on sweets from 1s. a gallon as laid down last year to 1s. 6d. a gallon. My recollection of the discussion last year was that the term "sweets" does not mean what you and I mean, Mr. Hope, by sweets, but it is a certain sweet charged with a liqueur. I would like to know if that is the case.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): "Sweets" is a technical term, and, if the hon. and gallant Member looks up Section 52 of the Finance Act of 1910, he will find there a definition given in the following terms:
The expression 'sweets' means any liquor which is made from fruit and sugar, or from fruit or sugar mixed with any other material, and which has undergone a process of fermentation in the manufacture thereof, and includes British wines, made wines, mead, and metheglin;

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is rather a technical term and it is not what you and I, Mr. Chairman, mean by sweets. In this case, it means British wines, and I thank the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for his explanation. I understand that this new industry will bear the burden. I am all in favour of taxing intoxicating liquors, especially those of such doubtful origin as this, and, therefore, I only rose to say that I support the Clause.

CLAUSE 6.—(Duties on mechanical lighters.)

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, to leave out the word "sixpence," and to insert instead thereof the word "threepence."
I should mention that, in association with this Amendment, I have a further Amendment on the Paper which applies the same reduction from 6d. to 3d. to imported lighters, in order that the question of Free Trade and Protection shall not come in. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland seems to be hoping that I shall be involved in difficulties in regard to the question of
Protection, but he will realise that I have taken care at once to keep out of that trouble.
This duty upon mechanical lighters has been introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he states, in order to counteract their use in substitution for matches, which he taxed on an earlier occasion. He seemed to regain some enthusiasm for his old Free Trade faith a little while ago in the matter of sugar, when he talked about the right of the people to buy in the cheapest market, but, when it comes to the right of the people to buy their lighters in the cheapest market, and even to avoid, perhaps, some of the taxation that he has imposed in other directions, he loses his earlier faith and brings in these qualifications. The difficulty about this matter is that substitutes for matches are not necessarily confined to mechanical lighters. Humanity has discovered many means of lighting fires for itself, apart from the flint which was originally used or the matches which were introduced later. Households are now equipped with paper spills and other things, which enable them very largely to avoid using matches, and it has become the practice among the working classes to save a good deal on their match bill, which is now so much increased by the Chancellor's tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had bean trying to be really scientific in his proposals, he would have endeavoured to place a tax, not only on the mechanical lighter, but on all substitutes that are likely to be used for matches. Instead of that, however, he confines his attention to the simple contraptions that have been so largely introduced during the last few years. As I said on the last occasion when this matter came up for our attention, you would rarely find any working-class household, certainly in the North of England, that has not one of these little instruments, sometimes using a flint, sometimes using a piece of steel with a small revolving cogwheel, ready for use at any convenient moment as a substitute for matches, and it seems to me to be very foolish and unfair to try to place a burden upon this perfectly legitimate instrument for the assistance of very elementary domestic processes.
In the long run it does not follow at all that this expedient will save the right hon. Gentleman's Match Duty by excluding
all the substitutes that might be used in place of matches. All that will happen will be that the inconvenience to working-class households will be increased, and that a good deal more time will be spent in inventing domestic substitutes, like spills and so on, and, in the long run, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will neither gain from the point of view of the Match Duty nor even from the point of view of the tax upon domestic lighters. I suggest in my Amendment that the tax should be reduced from 6d. to 3d., and in that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer would still have, in the tax of 3d., some safeguard in the matter of substitution. I hope that he will consider favourably the proposal that we are making. It is not, I agree, a matter of very high politics, but it is a matter that concerns a large number of working-class households, and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could meet us in regard to it, it would strike the imagination of the people and bring him back some little of the reputation that he so largely lost this afternoon on another matter. I am here to salve the wounds from which he has been suffering in the last few minutes, and to give him a chance to retrieve himself. I am sure that, if he can meet us on this proposal, his name will be blessed, at any rate in small matters, by a large number of working-class families in the country.

Mr. SAMUEL: The facts of this matter are very simple. Though the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. H. Hudson) has made his speech in a very friendly manner, I am afraid that we shall not be able to meet him. This duty is introduced for the purpose of defending the revenue derived from the Match Duty. If we agreed to this Amendment, we should lose a considerable sum of money. If we agreed to abandon the duty entirely, we should probably lose more than £50,000 a year, while if we agreed to any such reduction in the duty as is proposed in the Amendment it would reduce the ability of the Match Duty to produce as much as it ought to produce, and as much as we hope it will produce. We must look at these matters from the point of view of the figures that we have. There were, in 1924, retained imports of mechanical lighters to the number of 1¾ million. In 1927, that number had jumped to nearly 4,000,000. I do not want to worry the Committee with almost
elementary figures in arithmetic, but a duty of 6d. upon a mechanical lighter means the equivalent of the duty on 900 matches. I do not suppose that any manufacturer of these lighters would admit that any one of them produces so small a number of sparks as 1,000. It is, I believe, claimed that some of these lighters produce as many as 100,000, and that their life runs into a period1 of several years. If only 900 sparks were emitted from one lighter, it would, unless there were a duty upon them, deprive the Match Duty revenue of 6d., but the likelihood is that the use of a lighter in substitution for matches represents many thousands of matches, and, in fact, a mechanical lighter might very well deprive the revenue of 30s. or £2.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Will the hon. Gentleman, in order to complete the story that he is telling, give us the corresponding figures for the years he has mentioned, for lighters and for the Match Duty revenue?

Mr. SAMUEL: The Match Duty revenue in 1923 was £3,083,000, while the retained imports of lighters were 1,850,000 in number. In 1926, the Match Duty revenue was roughly £3,500,000, and the retained imports of lighters were 2,500,000. Notwithstanding the fact that in 1927 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the Match Duty by 20 per cent., and we estimated that there might be a revenue of £4,150,000, we did not get that amount in 1927, but only £3,877,000, while the retained imports of lighters jumped from 2,500,000 to nearly 4,000,000. We can therefore say that there is no doubt, speaking broadly, that these imports of mechanical lighters have greatly affected the Match Duty revenue, so that we are unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS: The inevitable doctrine has now been put forward that the putting on of a tax leads to substitution. It is one of the canons of sound finance that, as soon as you add to the cost of an article, it leads to decreased consumption or the use of substitutes. The policy of the Government, during the last four years, of adding to the number of taxable articles, has led to the natural corollary that more and more members of the community are forced to use less convenient
substitutes. I accept the figures given by the Financial Secretary, showing a drop in the use of matches. Now, as the next step, these lighters are to be taxed. That is not going to force people to use matches. There are still many substitutes possible. People need not carry a lighter; there are lighters attached to the wall. The hon. Gentleman, when he goes out of the House this evening by the Members' door, will find attached to the wall a lighter containing petrol, with a gas jet attached, and on inquiry I find that that kind of lighter is not taxable.
If this tax be persisted in, the community will get round it in some way or other. All that they have to do is to buy a new kind of instrument which they will attach to the wall, and in every house and in every kitchen there will be a fixed lighter instead of a lighter which can be carried in the pocket. What I wish to impress upon the Committee is that it is time we protested against the Government's policy of increasing taxation and constantly adding to the number of taxable articles. Sir Robert Peel became famous in this country because he reduced considerably the number of articles subject to duty. Mr. Gladstone completed his work. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer will go down to posterity as famous for the number of new articles that he has added to the taxable list. It has been estimated that at least 4,000 extra articles are now subject to duty as a result, not only of his policy, but of the policy of his colleague the President of the Board of Trade. The Chancellor, however, is putting them in his Budget, and he, therefore, is equally responsible.
This afternoon three or four more articles are going to be taxed. Now we are asked, in order to prevent the public evading the tax, as they inevitably will, to include gas lighters. The only industries, I am told, which have really prospered under the Government policy are the Customs House officials and the smugglers. I am informed that there has been a large increase of smuggling. Certainly, if we can be guided by the number of cases brought before the Courts there has been a constant increase, and the constant addition of duties of this character is going to stimulate the revival of the old industry of smuggling. I hope the Committee will throw out this
duty. It is foolish, it will not do anyone any good, and it is very unfair in its incidence, because the same duty is going to be levied on the lighter bought by the poor man, which will last for a few weeks or months, as on the expensive lighter costing £2 or £3.

Major HILLS: I hope I can convince the Committee that this duty is justifiable. Until 1916 matches were untaxed. In that year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. McKenna, imposed a tax on matches and a duty on mechanical lighters', because be recognised, as all economists must, that on all principles of taxation, certainly on Free Trade principles, if you tax one article you must tax the alternative article, or else you give it a very heavy protection. That tax remained on for four years. In 1921 it was found, owing to the disturbed condition of Europe—for nearly all these lighters were then imported—very few were coming here and the tax was taken off, because it was expensive in collection and did not produce any revenue. The industrial council of the match industry, which is composed of both workmen and employers, protested a couple of years later against the tax on mechanical lighters being taken off, but the matter was then regarded as of no importance. Now the imports of mechanical lighters have gone up enormously. There were very nearly 4,000,000 last year, and I see for the first quarter in 1928 they are 1,131,000, against under 800,000 for the first quarter of 1927, so that the case for some taxation by Customs and Excise is clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is quite unfair to tax one article and to leave the competing article untaxed, for by that means you give very great and unfair protection to the untaxed article. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson), who always argues a case most reasonably, suggested a reduction from 6d. to 3d., but a duty of 6d. is very low. That is about the amount of the duty on 16 boxes of matches. A claim of 10,000 lights is very commonly made when a lighter is sold. 10,000 matches pay 6s. in duty, so that for each one of these lighters the Revenue will lose 6s. But a lighter can be recharged, so that the loss to the Revenue is far more than the actual loss corresponding to the duty on the matches. The match industry has never asked for
protection, and has never had it. It also employs a large amount of labour. I hope, therefore, the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Although the Debate has been very short, a very significant thing appears to have happened. About a month ago an Amendment was moved by an hon. Member who is sitting strangely quietly to reduce the rate of duty from 6d. to 3d. on mechanical lighters manufactured at home. He pressed his Amendment so eloquently and was so enthusiastically supported by many Members on his own side that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury accepted it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member must remember the Amendment to which he is speaking. The question of the Excise Duty comes on later.

Mr. MORRISON: I took it there would be a general discussion. If it is intended to have a separate discussion on the matter with which I am dealing I will reserve my remarks.

Mr. J. HUDSON: When I moved my Amendment I mentioned that it was associates with a later Amendment. I suggested that the two matters should be taken together and your predecessor in the Chair seemed to accept that.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If it is understood that there will be no further discussion on the subsequent Amendment there is no objection to a general discussion.

Mr. MORRISON: I think the Committee is certainly entitled to some explanation either from the Chancellor, who was a way when the incident to which I refer took place, or from the Financial Secretary. The hon. Member pressed his Amendment with so much eloquence that the hon. Gentleman decided to accept it.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: To whom does the hon. Member refer? He keeps pointing to this side.

Mr. MORRISON: It was the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) who moved the Amendment and got it accepted. Complications and difficulties arose and a search party was sent out to find the hon. Member and bring
him back to the House. He offered to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the matter would be further considered. I, naturally, thought the Financial Secretary was going to clear up the mystery as to why the Amendment was accepted in the first place, and then pressure was brought to bear on the hon. Member not to persist with it, and whether any consideration has since been given to the point. I think the Government will realise that the matter cannot be left in the unsatisfactory condition it is in at present, without any attempt being made by anyone on their behalf to explain these mysterious happenings.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I do not think anyone on this side of the Committee complains of the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), because we recognise the earnestness with which he always speaks, but the considerations he has advanced bring us face to face with a matter which, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take into account. If you persist in the imposition of this kind of tax, another set of considerations comes into play, and that is the competing interests of people who are interested financially in one or other of the particular articles. It seems to me to be a most undesirable thing. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the doctrine which has been advanced by the Financial Secretary and backed up by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I should like to know from him whether he really accepts the doctrine that if you tax one article and people try to economise—the word "evade" has been used—by using another article it is sound financial doctrine that you must tax it in order, if possible, to make them use the particular article from which you mainly hope to get your revenue. The figures given by the Financial Secretary show two things conclusively. They show, first of all, that the increased number of mechanical lighters in use has not caused a diminution of the revenue derived from the match duty, and they show that the revenue in certain years did not come up to the estimate. In 1927 the figure was £3,800,000 odd as against an estimate of £4,250,000. That does not seem to be a very serious loss of revenue. Even if you accept that it is a serious loss of revenue,
does the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague mean to tell us that in place of a loss of revenue of that kind they are going to look round and try to tax every possible article used by people on whom taxation presses hard? If that is so, it seems to me that it is the most powerful argument against the imposition of taxes on a larger and an ever-increasing number of articles.
I want to say again with reference to this duty, as I have said before when referring to a good many of the safeguarding duties, that it is a very curious thing that if you go into the homes of poor people you will find that practically every tax that has been imposed during this Parliament bears not only hardly upon them, and in many cases solely upon them, but in every case bears more hardly upon them than it does upon any other member of the community. As a parallel to the present case, you have only to go back to the right hon. Gentleman's first great discovery, which, he will remember, he introduced with such pleasure, namely, the Silk Duties. The Silk Duties were so arranged that the cheaper the article, the more heavily in proportion people had to pay in taxation. In the case of the duty on mechanical lighters the cheaper the article, the more heavily one pays in proportion. This duty has this in common with some of the safeguarding duties. In the case of some of the articles of cutlery, the imported articles were so cheap that a 331 per cent. duty could not possibly give protection to the British articles. Here, again, the figures quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon prove, if they prove anything at all, that although this duty will impose a burden upon the poorest class of people who use mechanical lighters, the duty cannot possibly have the effect for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman hopes. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts the figures of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who says that a mechanical lighter of an efficient type is capable of giving 10,000 lights.

Major HILLS: Claimed to be capable.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman accepts the claim or not, but in order to make the argument quite clear and get
agreement, let us say that the claim of 10,000 represents, say, 5,000. That, I think, is a moderate estimate. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon says that upon 10,000 matches there will be a duty of 6s. If we assume that the number of lights obtained from the lighter is not 10,000 but 5,000, then on that basis the duty on 5,000 matches will be 3s. But the right hon. Gentleman is going to impose a duty of 6d. If the figures of the hon. and gallant Member are correct, this duty does not do more than 12½ per cent. of what the right hon. Gentleman claims that it is going to do. I think that that is perfectly clear to the Committee. The duty as it stands is useless for that purpose, but it will be a burden upon poor people.
May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to another consideration? He, unluckily, was not here on the last occasion when we debated this question. His temperature was high; he was not well. But on that occasion I took the opportunity of reading a letter to the House which I had received from a firm of British people who make these mechanical lighters. The statement in that letter was to the effect that three people who happened to be ex-service men, though I do not stress that point, and had put the whole of their savings into the production of a mechanical lighter, deliberately intended to compete with the imported mechanical lighter, and in their view able to do so, obtained on the day before the Budget statement their first order for 100,000 of their mechanical lighters. That was on 23rd April. On 24th April the right hon. Gentleman made his Budget speech, and on the evening of that day they were practically ruined. It is not a big affair, I agree. It was not a very big firm, and there was not a large amount of capital involved. But there was a small industry. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, when discussing the duty upon buttons, and by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), that even if an industry were small the question of principle as between helping the small industry and helping the large industry did not arise, and that a small industry was as much entitled to help as a large industry. Since the memorable day, of which the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr.
R. Morrison) has reminded us all, I have received another letter from that particular firm, and they reinforce what they said on the last occasion. They state that they set out to establish a British article in competition with this foreign imported lighter. They succeeded after months of work in producing an article at a price which, they think, will command a large sale. They got their initial order for 100,000 of these lighters, and they say, "Even now we do not ask for Protection. All we ask is for a free chance to put this mechanical lighter on the market."

Mr. RADFORD: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the case which he has laid before the Committee with his statement a few minutes ago that a sixpenny tax was not sufficient to effect the purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. CRAWFURD: I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, because it shows that I have not made clear to him that the expressed intention of the Government in imposing this duty is to protect the match revenue. All I am saying is, that if you impose a sixpenny tax, in view of the figures which have been given by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon, you are not going to protect the revenue; all you are going to do is to make it more expensive for these poor people to buy lighters. It is entirely a separate point. I hope the hon. Member sees that. Without wandering too far from the matter under discussion, I should again like to quote the case of some of the cheaper forms of cutlery. Where you have an article produced in a foreign country costing perhaps 1s. 6c, say, a cheap knife, and a corresponding article produced in this country costing 7s. 6d., you do not, by putting on a 33⅓ per cent. duty, stop the foreign article from coming into this country. You do not help the British article, but you do make it more expensive for people to buy the foreign article. Here you are not going to protect your match industry, but you are going to make it difficult for those who buy mechanical lighters. It may be that a 6d. duty will not entirely destroy the market for the mechanical lighter manufactured by the company to which I have called attention, but it will make
the article more expensive to the people who buy it.
It seems to me that this is a very good example of very bad finance. The total amount of revenue to be collected is small, and if the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon had any moral at all, it was not that there was no justice or any sense in this duty; it was a very strong speech against the duty on matches. Certainly we on these benches, and I hope very much that hon. Members above the Gangway, will not only object to this particular tax for the reason I have given, but will object to it because it is an example of the vicious system followed by the right hon. Gentleman of extending taxation over a large number of articles instead of concentrating upon a small channel of direct taxation.

Mr. MACLEAN: This Amendment is not one with which I altogether agree, because it does not go as far as I should like it to go. The questions that have been raised during the course of this Debate have shown that the real purpose of this duty, both the Excise Duty and the Customs Duty, is not so much a question of raising revenue as an effort to protect the match industry. The match industry is paying a duty, and it is naturally thought that by imposing a duty upon mechanical lighters, the match industry is going to receive some form of protection. I want to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is one of those instances where we find protection being given to an industry that is doing very well. Even if you try to protect the home industry, you are in reality putting money into the pockets of a body of international financiers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles. He ought to have had his Customs or Excise officers at that Box providing him with a few examples of the manner in which the boards of directors of the respective match companies overlap each other, and in which you find shareholders or directors in one particular match company actually sitting upon the board of another match company which is supposed to be in direct conflict and competition with it. For example, we find the Managing Director of the Swedish Match Company sitting on the board of directors of the British Match Company.
We find that the same individual is also President of the International Match Corporation. If we go through the lists of these three bodies, we shall find the respective directors going backwards and forwards. We find, as a matter of fact, that Members of this House are on these particular boards of directors in these match companies.
This duty which has been put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not introduced with the object of getting revenue at all. It is as my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has already stated, one of those processes of manipulation and bamboozling which seems to have been adopted by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is another case of manipulation; another case of bamboozling. It is another case in which the people of this country are going to be robbed through taxation in the interests of a gang of international financiers. That is all. I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the knowledge he is bound to possess and the information he is entitled to obtain and can get from his expert advisers in his own Department, could at least have understood what this really meant. A duty upon lighters, as has been said by an hon. Member below the Gangway would not be a fair tax apart altogether from the question of assisting the industry. If you go to Charing Cross Road and look into any of those cheap jack establishments you will see mechanical lighters for sale there at 6d. The duty upon mechanical lighters is going to be 6d.—a 100 per cent. tax. Next door you may see a jeweller's or a tobacconist's shop where lighters are displayed for sale at 15s. or 20s. each, and the tax upon those mechanical lighters is also 6d.

Mr. CHURCHILL: They do not compete with matches.

Mr. MACLEAN: Undoubtedly they do, according to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills). The right hon. Gentleman has again been badly informed by his advisers. We have been informed by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon that you get 10,000 sparks from a mechanical lighter. That means that you can have a light 10,000 times; you can have 10,000
lights for your pipe or cigarette, and if you light three cigarettes with the same light, you will have 30,000 lights. It is very absurd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make such an interjection. Evidently, what has transpired earlier in the day has affected his judgment and he cannot get to grips with this particular matter. The tax of itself is not a fair tax. It represents a tax of 100 per cent. in the case of the 6d. lighter. I am told that there are mechanical lighters which cost 25s. to 30s., and those lighters will only be taxed 6d., whereas the poor man who buys a 6d. lighter will have to pay the 6d. tax, or 100 per cent. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to get working class votes at the next general election, he is very optimistic, except perhaps in Epping Forest where the babes in the wood come from.
I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to the question which was put by the hon. Member for Tottenham North (Mr. R. Morrison), with respect to the rather serious happening in this House during the previous discussion. It was understood by the House at that time that after a certain statement had been made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who had accepted an Amendment, something would happen. The Government have not accepted that Amendment, although the House was led to believe, if not by a definite statement at least by inference, that the Treasury would do something to meet the Amendment that had been moved by the hon. Member for North Bradford, by bringing in a proper form of wording at the appropriate time. Surely the House is entitled to an explanation of what has transpired in the interval. No explanation has been given and the Duty upon mechanical lighters, the Customs Duty and the Excise Duty, appear in the Finance Bill as they appeared when it was brought originally before the House. What has happened in the interval? Has the Treasury decided to drop the pledge that was given to hon. Members below the Gangway and behind them who are insisting upon the acceptance of that particular Amendment, seeing that the Financial Secretary agreed to accept it? Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer gone back to his old faith in Free Trade and converted the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, has the Financial Secretary converted the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
or have the expert advisers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed him that it is impossible to carry out the pledge given by the Financial Secretary?
One would have imagined that when we came to this particular Clause, some statement would be made on behalf of the Treasury, either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the Financial Secretary. The House is entitled to some explanation as to what has happened in the interval that has meant the dropping by the Financial Secretary of the pledge given to hon. Members behind him, and the, bringing into this House of the Finance Bill drafted upon the original proposals which were in the Bill before the Financial Secretary agreed to accept the Amendment. I hope that we shall have an explanation either from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or the Colonial Secretary!"] The Colonial Secretary is not here and he has nothing to do with this matter now. It is the Members of the Government who are dealing with the financial matters whom we are pressing for an answer. Cannot they individually or, if not individually, have not they the combined wisdom that will elucidate the problem as to why that particular pledge has been a lowed to go by the board, and why we are discussing the original question?

Mr. GROVES: When we discussed the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, standing at the Treasury Box, persuaded the House to come to an end of the discussion, because he said the House would prefer to discuss the details in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was the first occasion on which we heard that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unwell. The House brought the discussion on the Amendment to an end because they were painfully interested in the illness of the right hon. Gentleman, and because they felt that the right hon. Gentleman might come along eventually and get the House out of the difficulty in regard to the proposed Amendment. I am interested to know what the proposals of the Government are in regard to this matter
and whether they propose to drop the protectionist aspect of it. I hope that they do, but I do not suppose that they will. Therefore, we have no right to come to a decision on this particular Amendment before the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives us his opinion. When we left the discussion on the previous occasion we did so on the perfect understanding that negotiations and conversations were to take place between the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That being so, I hope that we shall not come to a Division before the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives his point of view.
With respect to the proposed taxation of mechanical lighters, it is strange that anything that contributes to general cleanliness in working-class homes and to tidiness is at once attacked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and money is to be obtained from that particular article in the form of taxation. These little instruments came into existence during the War and were made in very peculiar ways in workshops—I made some myself—because matches were then so scarce. These mechanical lighters, which became a perfect boon to the housewives, have now become a necessity, and we have now made them so effective that instead of sticking them away in our waistcoat pocket, we are not ashamed to put them on the mantelpiece of our front room. It must be admitted that with the development of gas fires in the homes, it is not only more tidy, but safer for people to use a mechanical lighter to ignite the gas fire than having to use matches. That point has been overlooked. It is a contribution to personal and domestic tidiness and to safety that mechanical lighters can be procured for 6d.
By the imposition of a duty of 6d. on these lighters, which are so popular in working-class homes for lighting the gas fire or the gas stove, we are increasing the taxation in the homes of the workers to an undue extent, and my feeling is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well review the general position when it is proven to him that his proposals will actually increase the burdens on working-class homes. He must feel that every increased burden means a diminution of wage. That being
so, quite apart from mere party propaganda, if you are going to defend the new tax on the ground of expediency as a protection for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's revenue from matches, and he taxes available alternatives presented to the working people to avoid the increased taxation, will he not drive them to measures which will cheat the Budget proposal? I have stated in this House, and experience has borne out the truth of the statement, that the strength of the opposition here was responsible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrawing the proposed tax on paraffin.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer persists in the proposal to tax mechanical lighters, the housewife will have a very easy way of evading the tax because in thousands and tens of thousands of homes in this country she will get a little paraffin oil lamp, costing 1d., and use that for her purpose. She will be able to have spills, which are made out of thin pieces of wood, and by keeping the small penny paraffin oil lamp burning, she will be able to use a hundred spills without putting out the light. Paraffin is not to be subject to any additional tax, and I hope that the method which I have mentioned will be adopted by the housewives getting a small paraffin oil lamp and using paraffin, which is not to be subject to the tax, thereby defeating the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by not using mechanical lighters in the domestic way. We protest against the proposed increase in the taxation of the utilities and commodities of the people. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) has made the point that on a 6d. mechanical lighter, there is to be a tax of 6d. and that on the costly mechanical lighters, which cost anything up to two guineas, there will only be the 6d. tax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that these costly lighters did not compete with matches. I would remind him that at the big parties, where they have very beautiful and highly priced mechanical lighters, he will find that the people will be using these costly lighters in order to light their cigarettes or cigars. These mechanical lighters will be used in high circles, because there is no greater patriotism in the ranks of the middle class or the higher class as compared with the working class. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer will find that the people who play bridge and move in society circles and use these costly lighters will be prone to use them for lighting their cigarettes and cigars in order to avoid using matches. People who stay at hotels will adopt the same course. In the assembly rooms where cards are enjoyed the people there, who are as much concerned for tidiness as we are in our homes, will prefer the mechanical lighter, and in the ordinary refreshment houses where they are going in for tidiness will use the lighters as against the indiscriminate use and throwing away of used matches. He will find that the people who use the costly lighters will use them to the same degree as the working people use the cheaper lighter, and in that way he will find his proposed duty will be defeated. I hope that before we come to a decision, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will answer the point with which the House was dealing when he was taken unwell and that he will tell us whether he has put on the shelf the Protectionist proposal in regard to mechanical lighters, and, further, whether he will reconsider the matter and withdraw the proposal altogether?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. GILLETT: There is one point in connection with this proposed duty to which I would like to draw the attention of the Committee, because it brings up a rather interesting question of finance as well as a principle which is involved in connection with the desirability of imposing this duty on lighters. When the Chancellor introduced the proposal, he said that he was making it in order to protect his revenue from matches. I want to point out, in connection with that, the extraordinary position in which taxes of this kind place the Government. The Chancellor noticed what is obvious, that the match industry in this country was meeting a severe competitor in the production of the lighters which are becoming increasingly used. But, when we come to the consideration of the match industry, we find that the match industry in Europe and the world is one of the most interesting and almost one of the most successful examples of the great combine in existence in this country and other countries.
Some Members may have seen the article that appeared giving a list of the varied connections of the Swedish Match Company and the different countries with which that combine is connected. In this country it is connected with Bryant and May. There has recently been a new move in this country, and a report appeared only a few days ago of the meeting of the British Match Corporation, a new corporation which has amalgamated the interests of Bryant and May, Masters and Company, and another company in this country under the control of one concern. The chairman at the meeting specially pointed out to the shareholders of this corporation, I suppose as an indication of the usefulness of it, that another similar combination of companies has taken place recently in Canada, and the president, as he is called, of this corporation is also the president of the Canadian Corporation. So, in the first place, you have an amalgamation of the match industry of this country under the British Match Corporation, and you have it closely linked up with the various concerns in Canada. When we look at the connection of the Swedish Match Company, which was interested in Bryant and May, and so becomes interested in the new corporation over here, we find that this wonderful organisation has connections in many of the other countries in Europe. It controls two mills in Denmark. In Esthonia the match monopoly was acquired from the State. In Lettland and Lithuania the company has acquired certain match factories. In Poland the match monopoly was obtained from the State in 1926. In Germany a partial match monopoly was acquired.

Major HILLS: The hon. Member does not mean that the British Match Corporation owns all these bodies?

Mr. GILLETT: No. I referred to what had taken place in this country recently, but I was referring originally to the Swedish Match Company. We all know perfectly well that the hon. Member is a director of the British Match Corporation. I am not in any way imputing anything to the hon. Member. My belief in these matters is that, in industry at the present time, you have to choose between two things. Either all industry is to be controlled by great combines, or, on the other hand, by some measure of what is called Socialism. I believe that the
ideals of the benches below me are entirely out-of-date and that we have to choose either between the views of hon. Members opposite, who support organisations of this kind, or the views represented upon these benches. It is no reflection on anybody as to which belief they have, and I do not throw any reflection whatever upon those who take part in these great combines. As a matter of interest, I was pointing out how successful this great combine was, and I should like to finish in order to complete the picture, because it is one of the most extraordinary combines we have at the present time. We find that in Italy the company has factories of its own, but the State has a selling monopoly. In Greece the State monopoly was acquired in 1926. In Austria the company has interests. In France the company in 1927 entered into a long-term agreement with the State. I have given a sufficiently clear picture of the size of the great monopoly that is practically controlling the match industry in this and other countries. That is what I want to impress upon Members.
What happens? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of his scheme of taxation has imposed, a Customs and Excise Duty, simply as a means of raising revenue, because it does not seem to have any protective effect, as both duties are the same. Then he finds that this new system of lighters is beginning to interfere with the match industry. Therefore what he says is, "In order to protect my receipts from the Match Duty, I must put some similar duty upon lighters in order that the matches may be protected." To my mind, the first and most serious thing is that the Chancellor is really forced by this process of arguing into practically supporting this great industry. He is preventing competition coming into the field against the great match combine, not necessarily from any desire to support or help them in any way, but simply because of his interest through taxation in their industry. Supposing something else is invented that would compete with matches. The Chancellor would then have to institute a tax to bring them in. If something else was invented a fourth time, the Chancellor would have to institute another tax in order again to protect the match industry. So we arrive at this extraordinary
position, that the Chancellor by his system of taxation is indirectly—it may be against his will—but really supporting and protecting this great combine which is dominating the match world in practically the whole of the countries in Europe. It is one of the most extraordinary proceedings that we have seen, and one that should make us consider very carefully in this Committee the system of taxation we have, which compels the Chancellor in his own interests to come into the field as the protector of one of the great combines in Europe to-day.

Mr. RILEY: I want to emphasise the point just put by my hon. Friend. The only defence for this duty is that it is necessary in order to protect the receipts at present derived from matches. From that point of view the evil results, in the first place, from the vicious system of taxing matches. If no commencement had been made in taxing articles of universal convenience such as matches, then the second vicious step would not have to be taken. Because that step has been taken we are now told that something further must be done to protect the revenue from the Match Duty. The whole of this duty will inevitably fall upon people least able to bear it, people who can only use the cheaper article. We have heard from the Financial Secretary that last year 4,000,000 of these lighters were imported. That indicates obviously a very considerable use. Why is there that use? It is because the price of the mechanical lighters ranges from 2s. 6d. to 12s. a dozen, or from 2½d. to 1s. each. This proposal means that a duty of over 100 per cent. in many cases will be imposed on the lighters which are now used. That class of lighter is the lighter that is being used by the general body of working people. In order to protect the fiscal policy of imposing duties upon matches, you make by this duty 3,000,000 working people forego the use of an article they find convenient. Their convenience and interest have to be sacrificed to this policy. That is not a sound way of carrying on public policy, and from that point of view there is a very strong ground why the Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will explain exactly the position at the moment arising out of the
situation which developed a few weeks ago. Surely he is not going to allow the Debate to be closed without making some reply. The Financial Secretary in his reply to the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) said that he could not possibly accept the Amendment because it would create some international complications. There were certain treaties which made it impossible. It was said in more or less of an undertone, but later, to everybody's amazement, he conceded the point because, as he said, it was such a small matter that he did not mind giving way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should tell the Committee whether the financial complications referred to by the Financial Secretary arise out of any Treaty with other nations and whether they affect this huge match combine. Are these treaties designed to preserve the interests of this international match combine or are they the ordinary commercial treaties entered into with other nations? I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should explain the matter.
Appeals to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the point of view of the multitude of wage earners of this country, appear from our experience during the last four years to be futile. The right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary have always submitted one argument in favour of the taxation of mechanical lighters, which are used by the poorer people of the country—namely, that they are obliged to impose this duty for the purpose of preserving the income from matches. This year the right hon. Gentleman is imposing a tax on petrol. We are becoming too independent of imported oil and too little dependent on home-produced coal. If on a future occasion he happens, unfortunately, to be in his present position and pulverised fuel begins to take the place of petrol, will he impose a tax on pulverised fuel in order to preserve his income from the Petrol Duty? Is that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman? If it is, and it is pressed to its logical conclusion, there is no possible end to this kind of finance. The workers of the country are taxed upon almost everything they touch, taste or handle, cups and saucers, crockery, gloves, stockings, cotton, paper bags, all of which have been taxed by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and now on a miserable article worth 2½d. he is imposing a duty of 6d. in order to preserve his revenue from the Match Duty. We are entitled to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what these international obligations are, whether this method of taxation is going to be continuous, and whether the justification for a new tax is that it is going to preserve the income from some existing tax.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the Committee will he ready to dispense with further discussions on this matter and allow us to make a little progress. We have greet and important business still before us and it certainly seems to me that we shall be continuing the Debate into the small hours of the morning, which I hope will not be necessary, if we do not make more rapid progress than we are making at the moment. This is an extremely small point and should not detain the Committee for any length of time. I have the duty of raising the re venue in one way or another for the year. In 1916 a duty on matches was imposed by the Government of that day, and at the same time a duty on mechanical lighters was imposed as well. The two were treated as absolutely complementary, and I notice that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley in one of the Debates said that so long as there was a duty on matches there was a prima facie case for imposing a duty on mechanical lighters. At any rate, nothing could be more absurd than to impose this burden on the match industry without any sort of equalising protection from this rapidly growing competitor to the match industry.
There is no question at all of favouring the match industry, not in the slightest. They are subjected to what is nothing less than an unwise bounty fed competition. Since 1922 we have given the strongest possible preferential bounties to the mechanical lighter substitute, and to take this duty off altogether and allow a trade to be ruined year after year, and the revenue on which we are depending reduced effectively year after year, would be an unwise procedure. What we have to do is to protect our revenue and give fair play to the match trade. Instead or talking about international combines and world finance, hon. Members opposite should come down to the simple
point of the workpeople who are engaged in this match industry. I have not the actual figures of the number of people employed in England in making matches, but we are not hounding ahead so rapidly that we can say we are approaching a stage when we are holding our own in the supply of matches. There is absolutely no question of giving any favour to the match industry. The Joint Industrial Board of the match industry on which employees as well as proprietors are represented made a strong appeal some years ago that they should be free from the unfairly stimulated competition of the mechanical lighter and pointed out that the match industry was heavily taxed whilst this new development was not. Why should it be an improper thing for us if we put a tax on matches to make sure that the tax is effective. I am informed that on the last occasion this matter was debated it was asked that there should be a reduction on the countervailing excise duty and on behalf of the Government it was stated this matter would be considered before the Committee stage. I have given careful consideration to the matter and while there are arguments on both sides and very strong arguments too for a duty which favours the home produced article I think in all the circumstances it would be better to adhere to the original form in which the duty was imposed and that is what we propose to do. It is not necessary to go into the question of the international treaties but as the hon. Member has put the question I will tell him that the Treaty referred to is the Anglo-German treaty. The great majority of these mechanical lighters come from Germany and by this treaty it was understood that both countries would do their best not to penalise or injure each other's special forms of exportation. It was a thoroughly friendly agreement. There is no question of our being entitled to do what we are doing so far as the imposition of this duty is concerned. It certainly would create a more invidious aspect if we were to differentiate against the foreign importation.
I am endeavouring to protect the revenue from matches not indeed to free but to reduce the pressure and the
burden which a heavy tax on matches would create having regard to this hitherto untaxed importation and I do not think anything less than 6d. would be effective. I am not at all sure that more would not have to be imposed. If the Customs and Excise Duties were higher there might possibly be room for some differentiation, and possibly in future years the question of the Anglo-German Treaty will have undergone some revision, but at present the Duty is so low, and only barely sufficient to protect the match revenue from serious inroads, that I think, after weighing the matter very carefully and consulting the Financial Secretary, it would be better to leave it in the form in which it was introduced.

Mr. KELLY: I cannot allow the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go unchallenged. I refer to the statement that people in the industry have been consulted and have expressed themselves on this matter. It may be so with regard to the directors of the Swedish Match Company, but so far as the Joint Industrial Council of that particular industry is concerned, its members have not been asked to express themselves. I noticed that the Chancellor's statement was contrary to the statement that he made 12 months ago. He stated this evening that some years ago the two sides of that Council expressed themselves. Last year he told us that the Council had at that moment expressed themselves in favour of the imposition of this duty. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the industry not developing. It is evident that he has been very badly advised, as the industry has within recent years been developing in all parts of the country. It is of no use talking of the number of companies existing in this country. They are all under the one umbrella, and the one who carries that umbrella is the one who prevailed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year to impose this taxation, because it would be an advantage to the owners of that particular concern. Then the Chancellor comes forward this evening and says that in order to protect that trade and to assist the people engaged in the match industry he must impose a tax upon mechanical lighters. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but
have not heard one argument that would warrant anyone going into the Lobby in favour of the Clause.

Question put, "That the word 'sixpence' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 120.

Division No. 187.]
AYES.
[7.34 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ellis, R. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McLean, Major A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macmillan, Captain H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fermoy, Lord
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Finburgh, S.
Malone, Major P. B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson, Captain D.


Atkinson, C.
Forrest, W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gates, Percy
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bennett, A. J.
Grace, John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Berry, Sir George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Bethel, A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nuttall, Ellis


Blundell, F. N.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Oakley, T.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hamilton, Sir George
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hammersley, S. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hanbury, C.
Perring, Sir William George


Brass, Captain W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harland, A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Briggs, J. Harold
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pilcher, G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Buchan, John
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Preston, William


Bullock, Captain M.
Haslam, Henry C.
Radford, E. A.


Burman, J. S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Held, D. D. (County Down)


Campbell, E. T.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Remer, J. R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cassels, J. D.
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hilton, Cecil
Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Ropner, Major L.


Chapman, Sir S.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rye, F. G.


Chitcott, Sir Warden
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandon, Lord


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S. S.


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Cope, Major Sir William
Iveagh, Countess of
Shepperson, E. W.


Couper, J. B
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Cheater, Crewe)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sprat, Sir Alexander


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Storry-Deans, R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Loder, J. de V.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Long, Major Eric
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Looker, Herbert William
Tinne, J. A.


Dixey, A. C.
Lougher, Lewis
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Drewe, C.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Warrender, Sir Victor
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wragg, Herbert


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Watts, Sir Thomas
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Wells, S. R.
Withers, John James



Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wolmer, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shinwell, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, E. A.


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Day, Harry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Varley, Frank B.


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Viant, S. P.


Edge, Sir William
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murnin, H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Oliver, George Harold
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Owen, Major G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gibbins, Joseph
Palm, John Henry
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gosling, Harry
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "Kingdom" in line 37, to the word "other" in line 39.
There are four Amendments standing in my name, and they all relate to the same issue. The Clause as drawn not merely taxes the mechanical lighter, but the component parts of it. On the main question, the Financial Secretary just now referred to this as a simple matter, but it is not as simple as he would have it seem to be. I have here not a very cheap lighter and not a very expensive one, but one which before the tax was sold at 3s. 6d. and now is sold at 4s. 6d. This lighter, including a cover, is composed of 15 separate parts. It is an article imported from Switzerland. The point raised in the four Amendments is this. As I understand an answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a
question, if an importer desires to import the whole of the parts for assembling in a lighter of this character, a tax of 6d. is paid on the whole lighter or on the whole of the 14 component parts; but if the importer merely lacks one of these 14 component parts, the 6d. tax is applicable to one of the parts equally with the 14 in toto. That is absurd—to take 14 sixpences for 14 separate parts or sixpence for the whole 14 together. It is a ridiculous position that the Treasury would desire to alter.
I have here a card on which all the various parts are displayed. The Committee will have noticed that in the series of four Amendments we propose to omit certain words and to insert the words "a cover spring, a striking wheel, a striking wheel arm, and a stopper." Those four particular parts are chosen because they are all standardised parts,
and are more liable to fracture than others. The four parts which I have selected are the four most liable to breakage in the course of use and therefore the four which are most likely to call for replacement. The parts include a press lever, press button and screw, chimney cover, lever rivet, press lever spring, cover spring—an important part which is easily broken—striking wheel, striking wheel arm, cover rivet and screw, stopper, chimney top and wick. The Committee will find that the Amendment next on the Paper in my name would exclude the four parts most liable to breakage and a further Amendment would exclude wicks, which are necessary for the continued use of the lighter. [Laughter.] I notice an hon. Member above the Gangway smiles at that remark, but it is a statement of fact and, possibly, hon. Members are not accustomed to statements of fact.

Mr. B. SMITH: Not from the Liberal party.

Mr. BROWN: It is by the discussion of Amendments brought forward by Members of the Liberal party that the hon. Member can learn the facts. If the Financial Secretary is going to meet us on this very important point, the last Amendment is intended to deal with all parts intended to be used for replacement or repair. Shortly, the effect of the series of Amendments would be this. We desire to see that separate component parts should not be liable to the full rate of duty of 6d. on each part and we desire, if possible, to exclude all the component parts including the flint. I think the Committee will recognise that the proposal in the Finance Bill as it stands would be ridiculous applied to a small lighter of the kind I have produced—that is to levy a duty of sixpence on each of its component parts.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: In order to be quite certain that I am dealing with the points which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) desires to bring before the Committee, may I go through the Amendments which stand in his name on the Paper referring to this matter. I take it that the Amendment which he is now moving is that in line 37 to leave out from the word "Kingdom" to the word "other" in line 39. As I understand this Amendment it means that we should delete the words "and on any component
part of a mechanical lighter." The effect of that would be to exempt imported component parts intended for assembly or replacement in this country. To do that would be to defeat the duty on the complete article. The imposition of a duty on component parts is not a new method. It is already applied to the imported component parts of motors and musical instruments and watches. On the grounds I have just given, I am not able to accept the Amendment which the hon. Member is now moving. He has referred to the three other Amendments on the Paper which relate to the same subject. As regards that Amendment which proposes to insert "a cover spring, a striking wheel, a striking wheel arm, and a stopper" I suggest that that would only aggravate the difficulty which I have pointed out as existing in connection with the first Amendment now under discussion. As for the Amendment which follows on the Paper to insert "or wicks." the hon. Member has already got that which he asks for in this Amendment. Wicks are fuel and are not regarded as component parts of mechanical lighters and, therefore, the Amendment is unnecessary. As to the last Amendment to insert the words "or parts intended to be used for replacement or repair," I can only say that the first argument which I used about defeating the duty on the complete article applies also to this Amendment and I am therefore unable to accept it.

Mr. HARRIS: This seems an unreasonable way of meeting a practical suggestion. What is being done in this case is not what is done in the case of the component parts of motor cars on which an ad valorem, duty is charged. Here you are taxing each part at the same rate as the complete article. We realise the difficulty of altering the duty at this stage, but if the Financial Secretary gives an undertaking to reconsider the whole matter before the Report stage, no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) would not press the Amendment. A way out of the difficulty would be to tax each component part at the rate, say, of one half-penny which would give an advantage to the completed article. You would then have 7d. on the component parts separately. Obviously this duty is going to be a very serious thing. If a man buys an expensive mechanical
lighter and one part is damaged he will have to pay a duty of sixpence for the replacement of that one part. I suggest that this is really a helpful and constructive Amendment and is not put forward in any hostile or unfriendly way.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members not to engage in any practical demonstrations of this contrivance.

Mr. HARRIS: This Amendment has been put forward by those who realise the difficulties in this matter. English manufacturers have to go to Switzerland and the Continent for certain component parts and if you are going to tax each important component part you are going to put the English manufacturers at a serious disadvantage compared with the foreign manufacturer. Some of these pans cannot be made except in

Switzerland and they are made on the same kind of machines as those which turn out the component parts of watches. I am sure that the Financial Secretary does not desire to put English producers of these mechanical lighters at any disadvantage. When we last discussed the subject it was proposed to have a differential duty and to give a preference. We uphold that suggestion but we do not want the English manufacturer to be placed at a disadvantage. That would be a tremendous reversal of what hon. Gentlemen opposite claim to be their policy; and, therefore, I hope, now that his attention has been called to the effects of this proposal, that the Financial Secretary will reconsider the matter.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 115.

Division No. 188.]
AYES.
[7.53 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Couper, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harland, A.


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Haslam, Henry C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Atholl, Duchess of
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Balniel, Lord
Davies Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hills, Major John Waller


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hilton, Cecil


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dixey, A. C.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Holt, Captain H. P.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Drewe, C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bennett, A. J.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Berry, Sir George
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Bethel, A.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Ellis, R. G.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Blundell, F. N.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hume, Sir G. H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hurd, Percy A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fermoy, Lord
Iveagh, Countess of


Brass, Captain W.
Fielden, E. B.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Briggs, J. Harold
Finburgh, S.
Jephcott, A. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Buchan, John
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Bullock, Captain M.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
King, Commodore Henry Doughs


Burman, J. B.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lamb, J. Q.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gates, Percy
Loder, J. de V.


Cassels, J. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Looker, Herbert William


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lougher, Lewis


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grace, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Christie, J. A.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hamilton, Sir George
McLean, Major A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hammersley, S. S.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cope, Major Sir William
Hanbury, C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steal
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Malone, Major P. B.
Remer, J. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Margesson, Captain D.
Rentoul, G. S.
Tinne, J. A.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ropner, Major L.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Meyer, Sir Frank
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Rye, F. G.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Sandon, Lord
Wells, S. R.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Savory, S. S.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Nuttall, Ellis
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Oakley, T.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Shepperson, E. W.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Perring, Sir William George
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Pilcher, G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wragg Herbert


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Preston, William
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



Ramsden, E.
Storry-Deans, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. P. C. Thomson and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley
Sexton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, George
Strauss, E. A.


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, C.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Day, Harry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murnin, H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Paling, W.
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenall, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Richardson R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.



Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Fenby and Major Owen.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) move the other Amendments standing in his name?

Mr. E. BROWN: No, I think that disposes of them.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, to leave out the
word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
I move this Amendment formally in order to make certain that the concession which the Government have already kindly given us in respect of devices upon miners' safety lamps shall become compulsory.

Mr. SAMUEL: This Amendment is rendered unnecessary by the concession which I have made already with regard to miners' lamps. There can be no point in altering the wording for the exemption of mechanical lighters on miners' lamps if they do not come under this Act. The Amendment is therefore quite unnecessary. The undertaking which I have given to make this concession will be carried out, and therefore I do not think it is necessary on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite to move this Amendment.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is there any real reason why we should not have it made quite plain that the Government Amendment shall be compulsory? The Clause of course provides for the making of reasonable regulations and for instructions to manufacturers, and we have no objection to that.

Mr. SAMUEL: It would be a breach of faith if the Government went back on the promise, and therefore I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw this Amendment. I do not think it is at all necessary for him to press it, and I hope he will not press it.

Mr. POTTS: May I ask a question of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury arising out of what occurred on the last occasion when this matter was discussed, and having regard to the fact that Mr. Speaker on that particular date undertook, and in addition to that told me personally, that he would see that an opportunity was given for words to be inserted to safeguard the mining industry of the country? Will the Financial Secretary undertake to introduce an Amendment—he can do it if he likes—to make the Sub-section read:
Provided that the Commissioners shall exempt from duty,
and strike out the other words? He has told us again that he is prepared to see that the concession is carried out. If that be so, why not strike out the words and make it quite definite that the tax will not under any conditions whatever be applicable to miners, so as to safeguard their position.

Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Gentleman presses me, I will undertake to look into the point and see if I can meet his suggestion. As I say, it is our intention to
carry out what is implied in this Clause. I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman might take that assurance as we give it at the Box here.

Mr. POTTS: May I further ask whether, if we withdraw the Amendment, that undertaking will become applicable to inserting the word "shall" instead of the word "may"; or is the Financial Secretary prepared to consider the wording as I read it out, to leave out those words, and after the word "shall" to continue with the word "exempt" in the following line? If he will do that, we will withdraw the Amendment. It comes to the same thing as he is promising to do.

Mr. SAMUEL: No, I was dealing with the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. A. V. Alexander). I think it might be left at that.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We are satisfied with the bonâ fides of the Government in the matter, and we are obliged for the concession which they have made to us on the Budget Resolution, but I shall be glad if the Financial Secretary will, between now and the Report stage, substitute the word "shall" for the word "may." Upon that understanding, I will withdraw it.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 6, to leave out from the word "flame" in line 14, to the end of the Sub-section.—[Mr. Crawfurd.]

In page 6, line 16, to leave out Subsection (3).—[Mr. Wiggins.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Crawfurd) is covered, I understand, by an earlier discussion and the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Wiggins) is not one which I select.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move in page 7, line 4, to leave out Sub-section (5).
I move this Amendment because I think some explanation is required as to why it is considered necessary to have such
a very severe penal Clause, inflicting a fine of £50 on any offending manufacturer of mechanical lighters. Is it because the Government have taken note of events abroad? Is it because they feel that it will be very difficult to enforce the provisions of this Clause? As far as I know and can ascertain, if the law is evaded, offenders will obviously be subject to the ordinary law of the land and will be liable to a fine or other punishment. It seems to me rather a remarkable thing to put into this Clause a special penal provision for a very severe punishment, and I think we ought to have some explanation.

Mr. SAMUEL: I will endeavour to explain this matter to hon. Members opposite. The Sub-section to which the hon. Member draws attention appears on page 7, and is Sub-section (5) of Clause 6, beginning with the line "If any person." Is not that so?

Mr. HARRIS: Yes.

Mr. SAMUEL: This Clauses fixes the penalty for offences. They should be provided by the Act and not by departmental regulations. We provide the penalty by the Act and do not leave it to departmental action. Under Sub-section (4) provision may be made for applying enactments to the Duty on mechanical lighters but no regulation under Subsection (4) can put a penalty on Subsection (5) (a) and (b). Sub-section (5) provides for the penalty for contravention of the Act. In a word, this Clause puts the regulation of the penalty in the Act instead of conferring upon a Government Department the right to fix the penalty.

Mr. HARRIS: But, with respect, why put such a severe penalty for this particular offence?

Mr SAMUEL: That is the penalty which was thought to be appropriate to the purpose. Does the hon. Member wish it to be £49 or £51?

Mr. HARRIS: £5.

Mr. LEE: May I ask for an explanation with regard to Sub-section (5) (a). It seems to me to read rather queerly, and appears to mean that a manufacturer has no right to manufacture until the duty has been paid. Are manufacturers
to pay before they start to manufacture at all?

Mr. CRAWFURD: May I put to the Committee a point which seems to me to be of very great importance? If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will look at lines 14 and 15, he will see that a person who commits one of these offences, is to be
liable in respect of each offence to an Excise penalty of fifty pounds.
It is the words "Excise penalty" to which I want to draw attention. May I by way of illustration of what I mean quote something which has happened within my knowledge in the last few weeks. I want to draw the very serious attention of the Committee to this point. Here you lave, it is true, a very well known article, but, regarded as a matter of definition, there must very often be some doubt about whether a particular article is a mechanical lighter or not. Under a section of a previous Finance Act—and it may very well happen under this provision—an importer of an article into this country, a merchant who supplies agriculturists with implements which they desire, has imported several consignments of a particular object. Those objects are allowed freely into the country, and the Customs officials take no action about them. They are passed on, they are sold, and they are used; and then, when the fourth or fifth consignment comes, suddenly the Customs officers in the Docks—and of course Excise is exactly the same—say "This article is dutiable," and not only do they impose the particular duty but they demand from the merchant concerned the sum of £50, which they hold over his head, and they tell him that they may fine him or they may not. I drew the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to this particular case, and I am bound to say that I am profoundly dissatisfied with his reply to my letter and with the inaction of which he has been guilty.
The point is this: Here is the industry of this country left entirely at the mercy of the arbitrary ipse dixit of some official as to whether it shall be fined or not, simply on a matter of definition as to what does or what does not come into a particular class of a particular taxation. I do not propose to go in detail into the case which I have quoted,
because I think that I should be ruled out of order in relation to this Clause. In my view, and in the view of two lawyers to whom I have submitted the case, the article which has been subjected to duty, and on which this threatened fine is levied, is as remote in kind and character from the article which was described in the particular Clause of the Finance Bill as any article could possibly be. It was an exact opposite. Whether that is so or not, there may have been very grave doubts whether an article does or does not come within a particular category which has passed through this House for taxation. When Members of the Government confess their impotence to deal with these things, when we have a Government which gives every evidence of being desirous of grabbing revenue from any quarter, it is a very bad thing for the trade and industry of this country to be placed in the position that, by the ipse dixit of some official from whom there is no appeal, they may be subjected not only to duties which they are not entitled to pay, but also threatened with a fine. I want to take this opportunity of raising my protest against the Government in a case of that kind, not accepting responsibility for the action which they take.

Major HILLS: I want to point out what would be the effect of accepting this Amendment. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not the case of an Import Duty, but of an Excise Duty.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I agree, and I said so in my remarks, but in the question whether an article does or does not come within the category on which the duty is to be levied, the principle is exactly the same in the case of an Excise Duty.

Major HILLS: Unless a penalty of this sort is imposed, all that the Clause says is that there should be payable a duty of 6d., and I know of no law that could impose a penalty; all that the Revenue could do would fee to sue for the 6d. All the Revenue Acts and Acts which impose an Excise or Customs Duty, provide for a penalty. Although we say that a man is liable to a penalty of £50, the actual penalty is in the discretion of the magistrate, and he can make any fine up to £50. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes
he can, and the Clause provides that persons shall be liable in respect of each offence to a penalty of £50, and that any article in respect of which the offence was committed shall be forfeited.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I do not know the answer to the question I am asking, but is it the fact, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that the offender is convicted by a magistrate?

Major HILLS: Certainly.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Or is the fine inflicted by the Customs authorities?

Major HILLS: No penal authority is given to them.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I think that there is. In the case which I was quoting, which is a real case, a particular firm of merchants in this country were asked, not by a magistrate, but by the Customs officer, to send a cheque for £50 in case the Customs were prepared to inflict the penalty.

Major HILLS: Here you have a Clause that puts the penalty up to £50——

Mr. CRAWFURD: No.

Major HILLS: Let us be clear about this. For certain crimes like burglary a man may get up to seven years' penal servitude. A burglar is liable, to that, but that does not mean that every burglar gets seven years' penal servitude; and unless you put some such Clause as this in the Act, the Revenue would look ridiculous and the manufacturers would snap their fingers at it.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Will the Financial Secretary insert the word "maximum"?

Mr. SAMUEL: As there appears to be some doubt about it, between now and Report stage I will look into it.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Will the Financial Secretary agree to consider the procedure in these cases?

Mr. SAMUEL: I will look into the whole matter, and carefully bear in mind what has been said in the Debate.

Mr. HARRIS: In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Mr. BUCHANAN: No. I want to raise one or two points. With all due respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), he is not in charge of the Bill, and I want to know from the Financial Secretary an answer to a specific point. What does this Bill mean by this £50? Does it mean, what those of us sitting on these benches think that it means, an arbitrary fine of £50? Are we not entitled to get from the Government an answer, not on some day in the future, but now? We are passing an Act, and it is the duty of the House not to squeal after Acts are passed, but to see that the wording of the Acts are properly set out. It is no use blaming some civil servant for doing wrong afterwards; we should make the thing clear now, and we think that this means that a highly placed civil servant Has a right to say to a manufacturer who makes lighters that he is committing one of the crimes set out in the Clause, and that he would be fined £50. There is no procedure to enable the offence to be proved or any provision for defence. We may be right, or we may be wrong, but we are entitled to get from the Government who is right, and I ask that we shall be told now, and not on some other day. My constituency is vitally interested, and I want to appear—although Members of Parliament are not always given credit for being sensible—I want to appear sensible on this subject when I go there.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: It is very desirable that, in dealing with a penalty Clause like this, we should follow the usual statutory form of words. If the case is one which is to be tried before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, the Government ought to see that the wording is in accordance with the usual form. In the first Act which I look up, the Cinematograph Films Act, it is provided that an offender will be liable, on summary conviction, to a term of imprisonment or "a fine not exceeding fifty pounds." I think that the case would be met now if the Financial Secretary would allow the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, and if he moved a manuscript Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that it is too late to do that. The Committee has refused leave to withdraw the Amendment. This particular matter, therefore, must wait until the next stage.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I think we are entitled to an explanation on this point.

HON. MEMBERS: Sit down. The Financial Secretary is going to give it.

Mr. WESTWOOD: The Financial Secretary had no intention of getting up to answer until we rose on this side of the House I have not obtruded in these Debates, and I am not going to take very much time now but at least I am entitled to an explanation of these proposals. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down!"] If the hon. Member who has suggested that I should sit down will go out we shall get on. What I say is that here we have an instance of plain English of which there may be two interpretations. None of us can read into the wording of this particular Sub-section the definite statement that it is a maximum penalty. That point has been stressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills). We want to know and surely the Financial Secretary ought to know what was in the minds of the Treasury officials when the Finance Bill was being prepared.

Mr. SAMUEL: The question put by the last speaker and the other speakers is quite a reasonable one, and I am willing to give an answer. The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) put a specific question as to what was in the minds of the Treasury when this Clause was drafted. What is in my own mind, and I say this merely as a man of the world and not as a. Minister, is that this penalty can only be inflicted by one of His Majesty's Courts of Justice, and that the penalty might be anything up to but not exceeding £50. My view is that it will not be an absolutely fixed penalty of £50 in every case, but that it may be up to £50. They are my private views, as I see the position. I am not a Law Officer, and therefore I may be wrong on the point of law, but if hon. Members opposite are not willing to accept my way of looting at it I am perfectly willing, if they will withdraw this Amendment or have it negatived, to have the matter looked into and regularised if and where necessary.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the hon. Member give particular attention to the point that whatever penalty is going to be imposed can only be inflicted after police court proceedings?

Mr. SAMUEL: I will look into the matter when this Debate comes before me in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.

I will go into the question that has just been raised.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 116.

Division No. 189.]
AYES.
[8.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fairlax, Captain J. G.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McLean, Major A.


Albery, Irving James
Fermoy, Lord
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Finburgh, S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Malone, Major P. B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Forrest, W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gadie. Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gates, Percy.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bennett, A. J.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Berry, Sir George
Grace, John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Bethel, A.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nuttall, Ellis


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, w.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Oakley, T.


Blundell, F. N.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hamilton, Sir George
Penny, Frederick George


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hammersley, S. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hanbury, C.
Perring, Sir William George


Brass, Captain W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Briggs, J. Harold
Harland, A.
Philipson, Mabel


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pilcher, G.


Buchan, John
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Preston, William


Burman, J. B.
Haslam, Henry C.
Radford, E. A.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cassels, J. D.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Remer, J. R.


Christie, J. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rentoul, G. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hills, Major John Waller
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hilton, Cecil
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Ropner, Major L.


Cooper, A. Duff
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cope, Major Sir William
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rye, F. G.


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hume, Sir G. H
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sandon, Lord


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Drewe, C.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Duckworth, John
Loder, J. de V.
Storry-Deans, R.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Looker, Herbert William
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lougher, Lewis
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Ellis, R. G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tinne, J. A.


England, Colonel A.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wragg, Herbert


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Winby, Colonel L. P.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Watts, Sir Thomas
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Wells, S. R.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shinwell, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kirkwood, D
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, George
Strauss, E. A.


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove. W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Varley, Frank B.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Edge, Sir William
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Owen, Major G.
Wiggins, William Martin


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben



Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Mr. Alter Parkinson and Mr. Charles


Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.
 Edwards.


Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Reduction of duty on certain negative cinematograph films.)

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I want to say a few words upon this Clause with a view of getting a little information about it. As far as I am able to understand this Clause, it proposes to increase very considerably the preference given to films produced in the British Empire for foreign firms. Some of us spent many weary days debating the Films Bill, and we had many discussions on the merits of British films and those produced in various parts of the Empire. At present, there is a foregn import duty on foreign film negatives of 5d. per foot while the film negatives from the Empire are charged 3ࡩd. per foot. The effect of the proposals in this Clause is to charge all
negative films from the Empire at the same rate is blank films; that is to say, at the rate of 2/9ths of a penny per foot. Already, the producers have to get a spec al licence to exhibit the films, and they are bound to take a certain quota of British films. I think we ought to have some statement from the Minister in charge as to why it is necessary to increase the preference so much as is proposed in this Clause.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) has correctly stated the facts. The import duty on foreign film negatives is 5d. per foot while film negatives from the Empire are to be charged ⅓d. per foot. This Bill therefore affords an instance in which we are lowering a tax. The reason for our action is that this concession was previously confined
to United Kingdom films made overseas, made by the United Kingdom producers overseas and brought to this country. We are now extending this concession to British Empire films. The loss to the revenue caused by the proposals we are now making will only amount to something like £350, which is not a very large amount. The British Empire film nega-

tive imports amount to 23,400 feet as against foreign film negative imports of 5,462,000 feet. I hope the hon. Member for Hillsborough will be satisfied with this information.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 118.

Division No. 190.]
AYES.
[8.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fermoy, Lord
Making, Brigadier-General E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fielden, E. B.
Malone, Major P. B.


Albery, Irving James
Finburgh, S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson, Captain D.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Meyer, Sir Frank.


Astbury. Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Atholl, Duchess of
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ganzoni, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gates, Percy
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Grace, John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nuttall, Ellis


Bennett, A. J.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Oakley, T.


Berry, Sir George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bethel, A.
Hamilton, Sir George
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hammersley, S. S.
Perring, Sir William George


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hanbury, C.
Philipson, Mabel


Blundell, F. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pilcher, G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harland, A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Preston, William


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Radford, E. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ramsden, E.


Brass, Captain W.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Briggs, J. Harold
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Buchan, John
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Remer, J. R.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Burman, J. B.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Ropner, Major L.


Cassels, J. D.
Hilton, Cecil
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rye, F. G.


Christie, J. A.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sandon, Lord


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hume, Sir G. H.
Savery, S. S.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cope, Major Sir William
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shepperson, E. W.


Couper, J. B.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Jephcott, A. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Storry-Deans, R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lamb, J. Q.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Loder, J. de V.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Looker, Herbert William
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lougher, Lewis
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Drewe, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Wells, S. R.


Ellis, R. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McLean, Major A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Wolmer, Viscount
Wragg, Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T
Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.


Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shinwell, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, George
Strauss, E. A.


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Livingstone, A. M
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Varley, Frank B.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Edge, Sir William
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben



Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles


Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.
Edwards.

CLAUSE 8.—(Customs duty on buttons.)

The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the first two Amendments which have been put down to this Clause—in page 7, line 31, to leave out the words "five years" and to insert instead thereof the words "one year," and, in line 34, to leave out the words "thirty-three and one-third" and insert instead thereof the word "ten"—it appears to me that it would be a matter of some difficulty to confine the discussion on either of these Amendments to strict limits, and I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if a general discussion took place on the first Amendment, and then, if hon. Members desire a Division on the second Amendment, it could be taken. Obviously, the discussions on the two Amendments would overlap to some extent if they were taken separately, and I think, following other precedents, that probably the course I have suggested would be the best. The
matter is, of course, in the hands of the Committee.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I think it will suit the convenience of my hon. Friends if a general discussion is taken on the first Amendment, and if we then divide on the other Amendments that you may call.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister) indicated assent.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 7 line 31, to leave out the words "five years," and to insert instead thereof the words "one year."
In taking the general discussion on this Amendment, it will be possible to elaborate our opposition to the particular method of safeguarding which is to be operated under the heading of buttons. The proposal to bring this industry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act raises very definite and yet very peculiar opposition to the methods that have been
adopted, because, probably, this is the first instance of a committee under the Safeguarding of Industries Act taking evidence in camera which has not been published in the ordinary course prior to the issue of the findings. It is obvious, therefore, that our information is limited as to the activities of the committee that discussed the question whether safeguarding should or should not be applied to this industry, and that is a very good reason for objecting to its being brought into the Budget statement of this year, and into the Finance Bill for the establishment of Customs Duties and also Excise Duties.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): Not Excise Duties.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am sorry; I have made a mistake; it is a Customs Duty only. The question is, in the first place, whether this industry should be brought under safeguarding proposals which, in the main, are intended for industries of substantial importance. Obviously, if the manufacture of buttons is going to be regarded as an industry of sufficient importance to be brought within a kind of minor Protectionist proposals under safeguarding, we are led to wonder whether due consideration is going to be given to industries that really do matter as compared with the one that we are now discussing. Fashions very largely determine what the production of buttons is to be. At the highest peak of the industry there have never been more than 7,000 people engaged in it, and I believe the figure at present is only approximately 4,000.
The claim of safeguarding is that it is going to provide greater employment, but what can we say when we take also into consideration that the industry is very largely dying out because of the change of fashions? There is a tendency to eliminate buttons. There are many types of clothing on which buttons were used for ornamental rather than for any utilitarian purpose. For instance, on men's coat-sleeves. Ladies to-day are very largely wearing one-piece costumes, just as men wear pullovers. 20 or 25 years ago ladies' dresses had innumerable buttons either down the front or down the back. If that were the case to-day we could understand and appreciate it,
but evidently the Chancellor is not interested so long as he gains some little revenue, and therefore the President of the Board of Trade has to come to the rescue to tell us what wonderful things are expected from the safeguarding of buttons, which I understand will in no way help to make the industry more prosperous. It is not likely even to assist the one surviving remnant of the button industry which is, I understand, the pearl button, because that apparently is not made mainly for home production but for export. Every possible measure will be taken to evade the use of buttons and to adopt other contrivances. I think it was the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) who wanted to include patent fasteners, which are already coming into operation and will be increasingly used when this tax is brought into being.

Mr. HARRIS: There are two Ministers present, and I think we are entitled to some reply to the hon. Member's carefully reasoned speech.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I thought the arrangement was that we should discuss both the rate of duty and the term for which it is to be imposed. Other Amendments have been put down by Members of both parties, and I thought a wider case would be made.

Mr. HARRIS: I am satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to reserve his reply, but I should have thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would almost have followed the Mover and given a reasoned answer to the points he has made. I do not press the matter. I am perfectly satisfied. The right hon. Gentleman prefers to wait, and I have no doubt that he will deal with his usual courtesy with the case that I am going to put. It is interesting to remind the Committee that we are considering the Finance Bill of the year. During the whole of the afternoon we have been discussing proposals to add taxes, and the same sort of thing applied yesterday. What we are considering is the imposition of a duty on buttons, and according to all the traditions of this House we ought to have had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary and the Under-Secretary for Scotland, who has been acting as one of the Chancellor's colleagues, present to hear the discussion. It is a curious thing that when certain
things of a Protectionist character come along, the Chancellor of the Exchequer disappears into the background or into his private room. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury goes with him. Their places are taken by the two charming personalities who now grace the Treasury Bench. I do not object to their personalities, but I do object to the principle of this proceeding, because it is the business of the Treasury to defend the taxes of the year. At any rate, one Minister from that Department should be present. I see the Junior Lord of the Treasury is now present. Perhaps he has appeared to justify the placing of this additional burden upon the taxpayers.
Fundamentally this has nothing whatever to do with the Board of Trade. During the last two or three years we have had this new principle introduced. It is considered that it is the business of the Board of Trade to impose taxes and to ask the House of Commons to agree to these taxes. After all, this is a new tax. There is an attempt to lump together all these various classes of buttons as though they were of the same character and came within the same category. It would be just as reasonable to say that when you spoke of cloth you meant all kinds of cloth. Of course, cloth is divided into woollens, silk, and cotton. So it is with buttons. They are of great variety, of different character, made of different raw materials, and used for different purposes, and are as distinct from each other as the half-dozen articles that are comprised in the description of cloth. I am going to prophesy—it is one of the reasons why I support the Amendment—that the result of this duty will not be to encourage or to stimulate the button industry, or to open a number of new factories, but that on the whole it will only have the effect of bringing more money to the coffers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. W. M. Adamson) referred to the question of fancy buttons. I cannot move myself into a passion to object to a tax on fancy buttons. If ladies choose to decorate themselves less, it will not be very serious, for their charms will still remain. But it is a very curious thing that a great number of these taxes have been placed upon various articles that are used for the decoration of ladies'
dress. Artificial silk, fabric gloves, silk stockings and so on, lace and embroidery have all been subject to taxation. I suppose that if you are going to have taxes of this character, there cannot be the same serious objection to them if you single out luxuries. The only objection is to the principle. As a matter of fact, the words "fancy buttons" comprise a very large category. A great number of fancy glass buttons used to be manufactured in Bohemia, but fashion has decreed that they shall no longer be used. A large number of buttons are manufactured of "erinoid," or out of "galalith," both milk products, made out of what is called casein. The "erinoid" is actually manufactured in this country. Some of it is exported abroad and turned into buttons, which come back again as finished products to this country. The buttons made in this country are largely turned buttons. On the other hand, the "erinoid" button, which is principally imported into this country, is stamped by machinery and turned out in immense quantities. It is sold not only in this country but all over the Continent of Europe.
As I say, this appears to be a luxury, and if it results in the luxury being made more expensive nobody in this country will be seriously injured, except that there has arisen during the last two years in this country, not only in London but in Manchester and Birmingham, a considerable industry of manufactured costumes for export. Most of this industry was formerly centred in Berlin, Vienna and Paris, but, owing to the enterprise of the British manufacturer and to the fact that he has been able to buy his cloth in a free market, he has been able to make considerable progress in the manufacture of ladies' costumes. This duty small as it may be, is not going to assist the manufacture of ladies' clothing for the export trade. On the contrary, it will, to a certain extent, handicap the British manufacturer. It is a very interesting thing—and perhaps the Minister will explain this—that when once a button is attached to a garment it is not to be allowed to receive any drawback. That does not seem fair. In the case of artificial silk, when a garment is exported the exporter gets a drawback upon it. I suppose that the obvious answer of the right hon. Gentleman would
be that the amount claimed would be comparatively small, and that therefore the difficulty of collection would be too great. It seems to be only right in principle that the button having been attached to the garment the manufacturer should, if he likes to take the trouble, be entitled to a drawback. I put that to the Minister so that he will be prepared to consider a proposal of that kind. It may be a small thing, but when 100, 200 or 300 garments are being exported to the Argentine, Australia or Canada—and there are thousands of garments exported with buttons attached—it comes to a very considerable sum in regard to the number of fancy buttons that are taxed.
However, a tax on fancy buttons leaves me cold, but when you come to the other taxes, those placed upon ordinary articles of commerce, then it is a different matter. The trouser button, as explained in the Report, has rather an interesting history. It used to be manufactured of metal or of bone or ivory—the cheaper button in metal and the more expensive button in bone or ivory. But the ingenuity of the chemist has resulted in the discovery in South America of a very valuable nut. The chemists and the scientists have combined to enable manufacturers to produce a button from this nut known as vegetable ivory. Owing to the great progress that has been made in the manufacture of this button, the clothing trade has been revolutionised. The ivory button has disappeared, and the metal button has almost gone out, except in the very cheap trade. If we examine the buttons on our coats we shall no doubt discover that they are not made of ivory but out of the product of this valuable nut.
My Protectionist friends may say, "Why should not these buttons be manufactured in this country?" That seems a reasonable question. I have inquired—I have taken a great deal of trouble—and I am informed that, owing to the character of the nut, it is necessary, and it is a very great advantage, to manufacture the buttons in a dry climate. The Italian climate is especially suited to its production. I can give evidence in favour of that statement. The material was originally manufactured in Germany, but the German industry has
largely closed down and it has been transferred to Italy, where they have gone in for mass production and are making immense quantities which are distributed all over the world. It goes into almost every country where the people wear what we call civilised garments and use buttons. It does not go to a large extent to Central Africa, although I noticed that even some visitors to this House from Central Africa had gone in for civilised garments, and were wearing buttons. The figures are given in the report. These buttons are imported into this country, not in thousands of grosses but in millions of grosses. The actual production in this country of these particular buttons only runs to a few thousand gross a year. The bulk of them that are manufactured come over already moulded and are simply altered in a slight degree through a secondary process.
The result of this duty will not be the starting of a large industry in this country to turn this particular nut into buttons. It will merely mean a tax of 25 per cent. on the import of this particular article. The President of the Board of Trade may say that this is a trifling matter to make a fuss about, as it will only mean a tax of 2d. or 3d. or even less on a suit of clothes. It can always be argued against every tax that it is only a little one. I should like to refer to the British export trade in clothing. I do not think it is realised what an immense export clothing industry we have in this country, especially in men's clothing. This duty will apply to men's clothing as well as to women's clothing. English clothing all over the world has the reputation of being better than any other clothing. People will always pay more for an English-made suit, whether it be a ready-made suit or a tailored suit as something worth keeping, and as a result the clothing trade of Leeds and East London has been able to get a great number of world markets in spite of severe competition, and has been able to jump the tariff wall even of the Australian Commonwealth, which is saying something. There is a large amount of British clothing going into the Australian Commonwealth. The same may be said in regard to America and Canada, and certainly it applies to South Africa and South America.
I happen to have information about a particular firm in East London. They are exporting clothing not by dozens or hundreds of suits but by thousands of suits. They will not consider an order for less than 1,000 garments. These garments are going largely to South Africa to clothe the natives, and buttons on a very large order and on very cheap garments represent a considerable percentage. It may surprise hon. Members to know that trousers are being made at under 5s. a pair. They are made entirely by electrical machinery. They are cut out by machinery, sewn by machinery and the buttons are riveted on by machinery. The cloth is imported from abroad and the buttons are imported from abroad, and now the Government are going to tax the buttons which are the raw material of this industry. Unless the Government are going to make it their case that they will give increased employment in this country by starting this industry in this country, then from the tariff reform point of view and even from the point of view of the safeguarding of industries they have no right to levy a tax on buttons which will not result in the starting of a new industry, but will make a small article, which is of considerable use in the clothing industry, much more expensive.
I need not argue the case of the linen button at length, because it is admitted that no linen buttons are imported into this country except buttons of the lowest and cheapest character. The cheap linen buttons that are sold from the coster's barrow in Bethnal Green are imported from abroad. Why do they import them? They are not satisfactory. They are only imported because they are cheap and because the people who use them are poor and their wages are low and the household is difficult to maintain. Therefore, these people can go to the coster's barrow and buy these cheap linen buttons which the British manufacturer will not bother about because they are not worth handling. Of the better class linen button, 80 per cent. of the trade is already in the hands of manufacturers in this country. We have a world trade in the linen button. This trade do not ask for protection. They are suffering from depression which is not due to foreign competition but to fashion. Owing to the use of artificial silk, the pearl button is
now being used in place of the linen button, and that is the reason why there is not so much employment in the linen button trade. In the linen button trade this country has practically a monopoly except in the lower category. That is admitted in the report.
The last thing is the pearl button. The President of the Board of Trade was very severe on me on the last occasion and tried to make out that I was misleading the House when I suggested that the Japanese had a great advantage in the manufacture of this particular article because the raw material was adjacent to Japan. I was informed, and I believe I am right, that the great bulk of the shell required to make the pearl button, not the mother of pearl button but the shell button, is found either in Japan or in China, largely in Korea. A certain amount is imported from Australia. The President of the Board of Trade will perhaps be surprised to hear that Australia is very much nearer to Japan than it is to this country. Before the shell can be converted into the finished product it has to go through a great many processes and there is a great deal of wastage. It is very expensive to import the shell in its raw state and it is far more convenient to convert it into buttons on the spot. This is an essential Japanese industry. In regard to the real mother of pearl button the English manufacturers can undoubtedly hold their own in world competition. They can produce good quality mother of pearl buttons without fear of any competition. The figures and statistics are to be found in the Report and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. The mother of pearl industry does not want protection. It is the cheap shell button that is to be protected, and there again a tax is being imposed on an article of commerce which is used as a raw material.
Largely owing to the tremendous progress in artificial silk which has been made by the great firms of Courtaulds and the Celanese Company, a great industry has been created here and that trade requires for the lower grade materials a cheap supply of shell buttons. These buttons are bought because they are cheap, and I prophesy again that in spite of this duty, if it lasts for 12 months and if the figures can be
kept separate, it will be found that the imports of the Japanese shell buttons will go on on a large scale. The only result of the duty will be that it will bring in revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to have that revenue—but at the same time it will add to the cost of raw material and will not greatly stimulate any particular industry in this country. It is a tax which even on the right hon. Gentleman's own test, on the safeguarding test and on the test of the principles underlying the Safeguarding Act, cannot be justified either in practice or in theory. I hope for that reason that it will be rejected. If it cannot be rejected, I ask the Committee to separate the four different qualities. Let us keep them as distinct articles—as distinct as silk is from cotton or leather from cork. Let us say, if you like, that you should tax a luxury article like the fancy button, but not the cheap button from abroad.
I do ask the Minister not to allow himself to be guided solely by the report of this Committee. This principle of a Minister coming down and saying that these three great men selected from nowhere in particular have decided that there should be a tax, and that therefore we must have a tax, ought not to be adopted. I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) has come into the Committee for I think he has an equal grievance with me. These three gentlemen say that there should be a tax on hooks and eyes, and therefore there must be a tax. They say that there should be a tax on buttons and therefore the House of Commons has to give up its responsibility. The Minister has to give up his responsibility and say that, because these three great gentlemen say there should be a tax, therefore willy-nilly the House of Commons must impose this duty. I think that is really making Parliament give up its responsibility, and I hope, at any rate on this occasion, that the Minister will not take cover behind the opinion of three particular gentlemen. I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: With regard to the last point raised by the hon. Member
for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), in which he suggested that we should differentiate between different classes of buttons, I want to direct his attention to page 10 of the Report of the Committee which, incidentally, was a very competent Committee, and has presented one of the most detailed and comprehensive reports received on any subject. If he will refer to that page he will find that the Committee came to the conclusion that buttons—
are to a great extent indispensable, and form a homogeneous class, and we think any duty which may ultimately be held desirable should he applied to all types of buttons alike. Any attempt to discriminate between different categories would, in our opinion, be ineffective, and probably lead to many complications.
That is the carefully considered decision of the Committee, and the hon. Member has not presented the Committee or me with any reasons why we should differentiate between the different types. His speech was, with great respect, characteristic of his point of view. He holds the real faith of Free Trade. The whole of his speech was based on the assumption that, of necessity, this duty was going to send up the price of the button. He is not entitled to make that assumption. He is only entitled to assume that prices will rise by the amount of the duty in general where the Customs Duty is accompanied by a similar Excise Duty. If you have a large tax-free source of supply, you must consider whether that tax will not operate so that it will prevent a rise in prices. It would be worth while for the hon. Member to study page 9 of that report, where they consider, with very great care, the effect of overhead prices on the cost of production, and also the effect of the cost of production when British manufacturers can only get orders for the larger and more expensive types, and do not get an opportunity for supplying large quantities of the smaller types. Under these circumstances, not only are their overhead expenses unduly high, but there is a very large wastage of material. The result is that many manufacturers to-day are producing at cost far in excess of those which will prevail as soon as they have settled down under the duty now provisionally in operation and which, I trust, will be fully in operation when the Bill becomes the Finance Act.
The hon. Member has no right to build up a speech on an unproved assumption. His unproved assumption is that any customs duty necessarily puts up the price to the consumer. He said that this was a further tax on the public. It is not necessarily a further tax on the British public at all. The probability is that as this is a tax on buttons which are imported it will be a tax on the public of other countries. My justification for saying that is that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green cannot point to a single existing Safeguarding Duty, the burden of which is falling on the British public. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Pottery!"] As regards pottery, the question has been recently debated and the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) completely demolished the contention.

The CHAIRMAN: I fear, if the hon. Gentleman goes into that question, others may wish to follow him.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I apologise for being led astray, but the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green always comes along and pontifically declares to us that something may happen, but he never supplies any evidence. The hon. Member referred to the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but there is no question of difference either as to the Conservative party or the Government, for we are one and undivided. The hon. Member went on to criticise the effect on the export of British dresses and suits of clothing. The whole of that is built up on the assumption that the price of buttons was going up, but until he proves it he has no right to make the assumption. Let us, however, for the moment give him his point and assume that prices are going up. I wonder if he has worked out how much it is going to add to the cost of his suit? He grumbled because there was no drawback when the buttons were sewn on. If he consults the Safeguarding of Industries (Customs Duties) Act of 1925, he will find in the Schedule that a drawback will be payable where the buttons go out in the form in which they come in, but when they have undergone a process of manufacture, and have become part of a garment the drawback is not operative, because that would be stimulating the use of foreign buttons on goods for export.

Mr. HARRIS: You can claim a drawback on imported silk. It seems to me that if the exporter can show that the buttons are imported, it is in the interest of British trade, from a Protectionist point of view, that he should be allowed to claim a drawback in such cases.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the difference. Whereas it is perfectly true the duties on real and artificial silk to some extent have a safeguarding effect, they are primarily revenue duties, and the raw material in both cases is taxed. In the case of artificial silk, there is an excise duty of half the rate of the Customs Duty, and therefore, of course, there is a drawback. In the case of silk, the raw material is taxed, and therefore the whole supply of raw material in both cases is subject to some tax. That is why the drawback provisions in the case of silk are different from those applying where there is a Safeguarding Duty in operation and there is no excise duty in operation. The hon. Gentleman said that we could not manufacture vegetable ivory buttons satisfactorily in this country. Since he made that statement in Committee of Ways and Means, we have made some inquiries. We are informed by the British manufacturers that there is no foundation whatsoever for that statement. These buttons were manufactured in a very considerable quantity before the War, and I am glad to say their production is now rapidly increasing. The suggestion that the weather is a dominant factor is not the fact. With regard to trochus shells, the hon. Gentleman has been re-arguing the point he made in Committee of Ways and Means with regard to the advantage which the Japanese have because of the nearness of their sources of raw material. I am sorry the hon. Member has not read the Report a little more carefully. May I refer him to page 7, where the Committee are very definite. The bulk of these imitation mother-of-pearl buttons are made from the trochus shell, although some are made from fresh-water shell; and the Committee say:
There is no reason to believe that the cost of the trochus shell (which comes from Australian waters) is materially cheaper to the Japanese when freights both ways are taken into account, though no doubt they are in an advantageous position in respect to the fresh-water shell. But the British manufacturers cannot get down to
anything like imported prices, and in the absence of any other explanation we are driven to the conclusion that the chief productions of Japan must be ascribed in the main to lower labour conditions in that country.

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the Parliamentary Secretary read in page 12, paragraph 28, or perhaps he will allow me to read it:
The lower price of the imported articles is most marked in the case of the Japanese trochus buttons, for which without more definite evidence than we have been able to obtain as to the conditions of manufacture in Japan, we find it very difficult to account.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Naturally, they did not have any specific evidence, but it is common knowledge that the labour conditions in Japan are not of the same standard as obtain in this country, and the Committee are entitled to draw the conclusion that it is due to the lower labour conditions which prevail in that country. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that the industry was dying because of the change of fashion. He did not develop his speech on this very interesting line, modesty held him back at a certain point. I do not think he is quite right. It is true that less buttons are being used than in pre-War days. Ladies in those days used to have a great many down the front and a great many down the back, but now they have garments which they can drop over their heads without any buttons. No doubt there are still many buttons used which we do not see. Substantial quantities are still used in such things as pillow slips——

Mr. HARRIS: Those are linen buttons.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Still, they are very much used, and you will find that the importation of buttons during 1927 was substantially higher than in 1913. I am willing to concede the point that some of the importations in 1927 may have been anticipatory because they thought there was going to be an application for safeguarding, but if you take previous years it is quite clear that there has been no decrease in the importation of buttons. On the whole, the production of buttons has dropped by one-third of what it was in pre-War days. The Report says quite definitely that owing to the change of fashion there has been a reduction in the
consumption of buttons, and that that reduction has fallen almost exclusively on the British producers. We are, therefore, entitled to assert that the cause of the present condition of the British industries is primarily the result of importation being maintained at the same level as in previous years while British production has fallen enormously. That is a fair reply to the hon. Member.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: What about the total imports?

Mr. WILLIAMS: They will be found on page 11, but the figures for the whole of 1927 are not given. I have had them made out for me, and I find that the number of gross imported was 13,294,940, as compared with 11,629,836 in 1913.

Mr. BROWN: That is due to the threat of the duty.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I always like to be fair, and I pointed out that the imports of 1927 were greater, but if the hon. Member will look back he will find that in 1926, when conditions were somewhat abnormal, it was 9,000,000, in 1925 over 10,500,000, and that in 1927 it was much greater than that. The bulk of the increase in importation in 1927 took place before the public announcement was made of the appointment of the Safeguarding Committee, and I do not think the greater part of that increase can be ascribed to an anticipation of the duty. The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Adamson) suggested that the buttons on sleeves were seldom decorative. He is quite wrong. I do not want him to examine the coat he has on, but as a rule tailors provide us with three buttons on our coat sleeves, and these buttons vary. Some are decorative, some are unfastened. If you go to the best tailors they give you four, two of each: if you go to a bad tailor none of them unfasten. Hon. Members of the Liberal party have an Amendment on the Paper to provide that buttons which are fastened shall be exempt from the duty while those which are for decorative purposes shall pay. I ask hon. Members to look at their coats and they will find that they are identical, and it would be absurd to suggest that the Customs officials should differentiate between these two sets of buttons. It would be quite impossible to analyse the motives of the importer, as to what he
is going to do with the buttons. That Amendment is really too absurd for words, and, with a view to their own reputations, I hope they will not move it. We have had a long Debate previously on this matter, and unless there is any further point of real substance I hope we may now take a vote.

Mr. J. HUDSON: I can understand that the pontifical statement of the Parliamentary Secretary should conclude with the supposition that everything is now to be wound up. There is still a good deal to be said on this question which does not appear in his speech or in the Report to which he attaches such importance. In a recent Debate he dismissed with scorn any reference to the economic theories of Mill or Adam Smith, and I presume he is able to do so because of these special reports which contain such carefully considered statements from which such complete conclusions can always be drawn. I am not able to take that attitude. These reports regarding the safeguarding of industry procedure are among the most unsatisfactory State documents published in this or any other country. They all consist, in my opinion, of special pleadings, and very frequently, as indeed in this case, accusations are made, with good grounds as to the biased attitude not only of the ordinary members of these committees, but sometimes of the chairmen themselves. We are considering now a proposal made by the Committee which heard the evidence for the application of this special duty in camera. Those who provided the evidence were so uncertain of its value that they were not prepared to let it see the light of day, and we are asked by the Board of Trade, after a procedure of that sort, after evidence given in that way, to regard this statement as quite final and to proceed to impose this special duty.
It may be true that the subject of the tax is of very minor importance, but I think we are right on these benches in continuing our opposition to all this typo of taxation on account of the principle that is involved. The Parliamentary Secretary in one part of his speech drew attention to the lower wages in Japan as a reason for our protection against the pearl or imitation pearl buttons that Japan exports to this country, and he made the same mistake in coming to that conclusion as he made on a former occasion
when we were dealing with a similar proposal He assumed that the conditions in Japan are generally worse than the conditions here, and that therefore it could be argued without further evidence that the conditions in this particular industry would be worse. The importance of this issue, from my point of view, is that if the general conditions of industry in Japan are lower all round and there is no difference between the rates paid in wages and the general rates of production in this case, as compared with other industries in Japan, then there is no case made out for a special protection against goods coming into this country, unless it can be shown that some very spec al advantage is being obtained because of the lower rates of wages in one particular industry.
I said in a previous Debate that the arguments of John Stuart Mill on this issue had never been upset, and they have not been upset by the Parliamentary Secretary's pontifical statement drawn from the Reports of Committees like those that we are considering. The hon. Gentleman, as usual, went on to protest against our argument that these protective taxes are usually shifted to the consumer. He said that there was no evidence of that statement. I am willing to admit that in certain exceptional cases where there is a peculiar elasticity in demand—in those cases so well examined theoretically by Professor Alfred Marshall in the famous White Paper issued by the Government when these controversies first came before us—it is true that it may be possible to shift the burden of a tax on to the foreigner and avoid the burden yourself. But our experience of the taxes that have been tried in connection with this procedure, in a large number of cases if not in all, leads us to suppose that the tax usually has to be borne by our consumers, and the Government know perfectly well that there is always the risk of that result. Therefore, although the Parliamentary Secretary-may pretend to dismiss scornfully the slight burden of this tax upon buttons, let me assure him that the question of obtaining orders for garments from abroad is very often decided by very small margins, reckoned not in shillings and pounds but in halfpennies and farthings. It is in Leeds, Manchester, London and other great cities that the
garment-making trades are found, and it hon. Gentlemen opposite are really concerned about getting more employment for our people and safeguarding the conditions in the trade, they should really consider the necessity of avoiding a pettifogging tax such as this.
I do not want to go into great detail regarding the different types of buttons that we are discussing. Pearl buttons, the real pearl buttons, are for the most part made in this country. We have very largely a monopoly of the trade, and in addition to supplying our own market have a very considerable export trade. The matter is dealt with in the Report of the Committee which has been referred to. The export of mother-of-pearl buttons produced in this country amounted in 1924 to 240,000 gross. Surely there is no advantage to be obtained for that type of button by attempting to put any tax on the buttons that come from abroad? Indeed it would be more likely, in the crippling influence that it would set up in our general international trade arrangements, to result in a loss of some of the trade that we already possess in that particular article. The same remark applies to many of the erinoid buttons produced in this country, in which we have a considerable export trade. The only place where you can hope to secure an advantage is in relation to the import of goods from Japan or Italy, but the prices at which those goods can be made in Japan and Italy are so much lower than the prices at which we are able to produce them, that it is a mere waste of time for this House to discuss the matter in the hope of securing any advantage whatever.
I know that Conservative Members will go down to their constituents and talk about their Empire Bill—fastening the Empire together with buttons. They will wave the flag over their heads. The fact remains, when they have pushed their claim down to the last button, that still with their 334 per cent. protection they will win no advantage at all against the commodities made in Italy and Japan, and that not even a 100 per cent. tax would produce the results that they pretend to desire. In view of the important claims that have been made, and although buttons are small and the question raised is apparently smaller, it is
worth our while to spend some time in getting rid of the stupid pretensions that the Tory party so generally put forward.

Mr. MACKINDER: I wish to enter once again an emphatic protest against the way in which Members are treated in connection with these safeguarding proposals. Only certain Members have the advantage of reading the evidence, or hearing the evidence submitted for and against these applications. I take it that hon. Members opposite would prefer to convince Members on this side, rather than bludgeon them by mere numbers in the Division Lobby. I, like other Members, have only a limited amount of time at my disposal, and much as I would like to attend these inquiries, I cannot do so. I have asked many times that the evidence submitted to these various committees should be placed in the Library, but that request has always been refused. In the report of the committee dealing with buttons one finds a paragraph like this:
The foreigner, on the other hand, with the advantage as it appeal's to us of cheaper labour, produces a largo quantity of pressed buttons.
Members ought to have the evidence on which the committee base that assumption. After all, it is an assumption that the foreign labour is cheaper. I am interested in the trade union movement. The employers in the West Riding of Yorkshire claimed that owing to cheap labour the French could produce cloth cheaper than ours. We sent a deputation of workpeople to France, and they completely exploded that fallacy. If is too expensive to place this evidence at the disposal of Members, or if it is too unimportant, at least we ought to know the reason why we cannot have it. This is considered by the Government to be a matter of some importance, and there does not seem to be any good reason why we should not have an opportunity of seeing all the arguments advanced pro and con. All through the report rims the assumption about cheap labour. On page 6 we find:
We are satisfied that the principal reason for the cheapness of the Italian buttons is the lower cost of labour in that country, lower overheads and mass production.
What is the evidence in support of that statement? Is there any reason why it should not be available? I have asked
in this Chamber on three occasions that any Member who cared to do so should have the opportunity to investigate the case made by the appellants in these applications. This committee also state:
We heard something of a newly invented multiple press which was said to reduce labour costs in this process.
Are we to take it for granted that the committee has heard of the machine and that that is quite sufficient? I shall continue to raise my protest against any of these safeguarding proposals being brought before us without Members of Parliament having the access to the information on which the committee makes its decision.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. E. BROWN: I wish to add a few words to the admirable statement made by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). Before we come to a decision upon this Amendment, we ought to realise the effect which this duty will have upon the entrepot trade in these buttons. At least one-third of the Japanese shell importation is for the entrepot trade and if hon. Members turn to page 15, they will find that the conclusion of the committee is a very guarded one:
It has been suggested to us that there is a large re-export trade which now has its home in this country, and that the facilities for re-export would he greatly decreased if a duty was imposed. While recognising the importance of this re-export trade, we doubt whether our conclusions ought to be influenced by this consideration, and we think that the suggested difficulties could be got over by separate orders for and separate packing of buttons.
The committee were obviously in grave doubt as to what was the answer to the opposition of those interested in that trade. It is an important branch of British commerce. All kinds of people round the docks, wharfingers, those engaged in the warehousing trade and carriers, are interested in it. The next paragraph of the Report leads up to the final conclusion—and the weight of this argument seems to me to be overwhelming at least as regards the Japanese buttons. The committee asked the question whether the claim has been substantiated or not and they say:
The duty asked for was 33⅓ per cent. on all buttons. We have some doubt whether
in every case this amount will be sufficient to bridge the gap in prices, and there are possibly some types of buttons, such as those made from the cheap Japanese fresh water shell with which we shall never be able to compete in this country, but any higher duty would probably be excessive in other classes, and we do not think that it would be feasible to impose discriminating rates on the different classes.
I submit that on the finding of the committee there is an overwhelming case in favour of our contention. Since this particular type of button enters very largely into the export trade and since the committee find that we shall never be able no compete in regard to it, the effect of this duty will be to hand over to Hamburg the trade in Japanese buttons at present exported to Europe through London.

Mr. PALING: I have read the report with great interest and one thing which seems to stand out in it above everything else is its inconclusiveness. I think there have been as many meetings held by this committee as by any other committee which has made a report. There have been 35 meetings and I understand that 19 of them were meetings for getting evidence. It appears that they have tried to get evidence and have made every effort to try to prove the case because they wanted to do so but notwithstanding that, the report seems to be inconclusive. For instance they say on page 5:
The foreigner, on the other hand, with the advantage as it appears to us—
Surely if they have the evidence, and if the evidence is conclusive, they ought to know whether it is the fact or not. It could not appear as one thing to them and as another thing to somebody else. It evidently was not very conclusive, or they would not have put in those words. They go on to say:
We heard something of a newly invented multiple press.
Fancy a committee of this description people who are supposed to know what they are talking about, people with judicial minds, meeting 35 times, and saying, "We heard something of a multiple press!" What kind of evidence is that? The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder) and other Members have been pressing time after time in this House for the evidence in these inquiries to be laid on the Table
so that we can see it. When they come and say, "We heard something of a multiple press," and "It appears to us" and so on all the way through from beginning to end of this report, we ought to have the evidence before us. They say:
We heard something of a newly invented multiple press, which was said"—
said," mark you—
to reduce labour costs in this process, and we were told that foreign firms are able in some cases to make use of their erinoid waste in further production, which is not done here.
We heard something," "which was said," and "we were told" all in one sentence! In nearly every paragraph there is something of the same description. It is the most inconclusive thing that could possibly be written and presented to the House of Commons. The report says further:
These processes, however, seem to be still in an experimental stage.
They "seem to be"; they do not know. Somebody has told them something about something which has appeared somewhere, some time, somehow, and they say: "It seems to be!" They do not know, but it is good enough to offer as evidence to the President of the Board of Trade, and because of his anxiety to get safeguarding, seeing that they cannot get full protection, it is good enough for him to accept. But when we ask that the evidence upon which these reports have been based shall be presented to the House of Commons, apparently the President of the Board of Trade thinks it is so bad that he refuses to give it to us; and no wonder, in face of a report of this description, in which they say that somebody has told them something about something that occurred somewhere, some time, somehow, in some continent which they do not know about. Then the Report says:
We are satisfied that the principal reason for the cheapness of the Italian buttons is the lower cost of labour.
They are satisfied, but they do not give any evidence; they do not quote anything, and they do not tell you where you can get the evidence. They say that they are satisfied, and the lower cost of labour is the only argument that they put forward from beginning to end of this
report. But the next few words are rather significant:
We are satisfied that the principal reason for the cheapness of the Italian buttons is the lower cost of labour in that country, lower overheads and mass production.
Lower overheads and mass production are things which we might have in this country. Surely that is not a good reason for putting on a protective duty. By saying that the Italians have lower overhead costs than we have and have introduced mass production where we have not done so in this country, they are simply giving evidence that the Italians know their business better than we do and can sell buttons more cheaply than we can for that reason. They go on to say in the next paragraph:
We were informed that the British cost could be very materially reduced by the installation of special machines which are in use on the Continent.
They do not know; they did not make any inquiry about the special machines; but they say, "We were informed," and they leave it at that, and they produce that as good evidence. If it is the fact that the price of buttons has been reduced on the Continent and they can sell them so cheaply because of the use of special machines, that again seems to be pretty good evidence that the people on the Continent know their business with regard to making buttons better than we do, and use the latest scientific machinery that can be used, and presumably, because of the fact that we do not use it here, they are asking for a protective tariff of 33⅓ per cent., and getting it. I see again that at the top of page 7 they say:
There is no reason to believe"—
they do not know—
that the cost of the trochus shell (which comes from Australian waters) is materially cheaper to the Japanese.…though no doubt they are in an advantageous position in respect of the fresh water shells, but the British manufacturers cannot get down to anything like imported prices, and in the absence of any other explanation we are driven to the conclusion that the cheap production of Japan must be ascribed in the main to lower labour conditions in that country.
They do not know: they cannot prove it, but "in the absence of any other explanation" they assume this and send it as evidence to the President of the Board of Trade, knowing that he will accept
it, as he has done here to-night. In paragraph 14 they go on to say:
There are now only two firms left in this country who do this trade to any important extent, but they are, in our opinion, sufficiently equipped to take their full share in this important section of the button industry if conditions can be equalised, though we feel some doubt whether the 33⅓ per cent. duty asked for by the applicants will be practically effective.
They do not know; they are suggesting something about which they feel a doubt. If you go on to page 14, you get the same thing. In paragraph 36 they say:
In this country, wages are regulated by a Trade Board, under which the minimum rates for workers over 21 years are 1s. 3¾d. to 1s. 1½d. per hour (men) and 7½d. to 6½d. per hour (women). We gathered that a good deal of labour in some button factories is juvenile labour, for which, of course, the Trade Board rates are lower, but we have no reason to suppose that this is not also the case abroad.
They gather that a good deal of labour in British factories is juvenile labour; they do not know, and they did not make sufficient inquiries to ascertain, but somebody told them, and they believed it, and they put it down here. Then, again, they say, in order to try to say something against that statement:
But we have reason to suppose that this is also the case abroad.
I ask the President of the Board of Trade: Does he think that that is evidence fit to lay before the House of Commons to ask them to put a 33⅓ per cent. duty on buttons? Take paragraph 37. There they say:
We had information from various sources dealing with wages in the button industry in Italy, Japan, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Germany. In every case wages were considerably below those in this country, and, although this information was not always quite up to date, and it is probably true that wages abroad have been lately on the up grade"—
here they are making a suggestion on evidence which they admit is not up to date, on figures which by their own admission are not up to date. They say:
It is probably true that wages abroad have been lately on the up grade,
but they did not make any inquiry, and they have no figures to prove it. They wanted to prove a case for a protective duty on buttons, and they were satisfied, because somebody had told them something, that it was probably true, and because they wanted to put a protective
duty on buttons they have brought in a Report full of paragraphs of this description, the most inconclusive thing which has ever been presented to Parliament. The President of the Board of Trade ought to be heartily ashamed of himself for accepting it.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I want to put one point to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I put this forward in support of the plea of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder). I do not know whether the hon. Member for Shipley or I myself have asked the more often that we should have put before us the evidence in these cases, but, whichever of us has done it the more frequently, I am quite with him in saying that I do think it is time that we should be enabled to judge of the evidence in these inquiries. I want the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, if he will, to read one passage to which I draw his attention, the second sentence in paragraph 40:
While recognising the importance of this re-export trade, we doubt whether our conclusions ought to be influenced by this consideration.
The paragraph in the White Paper dealing with safeguarding under which that observation was made is quoted above, and it is this:
Whether the imposition of a duty on goods of the class or description in question would exert a seriously adverse effect on employment in any other industry, being an industry using goods of that class or description in production.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, and as I have only been back in my place about 20 minutes I do not expect he will answer me when I sit down, but I would be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman will, on the Report stage, take the opportunity of answering the question which I am going to put to him:
The point is whether, when you have set up a Committee under the terms of the White Paper, there is any doubt as to whether the Committee ought to have regard to the re-export trade in dealing with the particular article concerned, or—and I am not suggesting this as being the fact—whether any instruction has been given by the right hon. Gentleman's Department to such Committees to disregard the effect that may be produced on the re-export trade? This report,
while setting out quite clearly the paragraph from the White Paper, states that the Committee recognise that there is an important re-export trade but are doubtful whether their conclusions ought to be influenced by that consideration. If we had the evidence and could read it for ourselves, we should be able to come to some conclusion as to whether they were right as regards this doubt and whether the effect on the re-export trade was likely to be important or not. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman or his colleague, either to-night or at some future time, to give an answer as to whether there should in future be any doubt at all in the minds of the Committee.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I need not wait for the Report stage to answer that question. The answer is two-fold. No special instructions have been given to this or any other Committee. The second answer is that His Majesty's Government have had the foresight to consider the entrepot trade, and, if the hon. Member looks at the Bill, he will see that in Sub-section (3) all those provisions of the earlier Finance Acts for giving special facilities for the entrepot trade are embodied in respect of this and other duties imposed. A drawback is given on those articles which are re-exported in the same condition as they were when they were imported. That, I think, is the complete answer. My hon. Friend very seldom misses a point like that. With regard to publishing the evidence, I am following the excellent precedent set by the hon. Member's party, when they were in office in the Coalition Government.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Oh no, I cannot associate myself with that.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The precedent set then, which has always been followed, is that the report should be published but not the evidence. I would point out that when any duty is proposed merely upon the authority of the Government we have not even got a report. Here we have a full inquiry

and a report, and therefore there can be much less question of the House being uninformed than in the case of a duty presented merely on the authority of a Minister. I must say quite emphatically that if at some future time alterations are made in the procedure by way of the White Paper, they will not be in the direction of making the procedure more cumbrous.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going to give some reason in reply to the arguments of the hon. Member behind me below the Gangway, why the evidence should not be produced. The only excuse the right hon. Gentleman made was to say that when the Government make proposals there is no evidence required, but the difference between the Government making some proposal and a statutory committee——

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is not statutory at all.

Mr. SNOWDEN: But these committees come under the safeguarding White Paper, which lays down the rules and regulations——

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It has no statutory authority at all.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The contention of my hon. friend's is a perfectly sound one. Is the House of Commons to be expected to take this Report simply on trust, especially when on the face of it the Report gives indications that there is obviously some real foundation for many of its statements. The House of Commons has a perfect right to know the evidence on which the Committee came to their conclusions, and until we have that report the House of Commons is not in a position to come to an intelligent conclusion on the matter.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 229.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sexton, James


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Smillie, Robert


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Strauss, E. A.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Edge, Sir William
MacLaren, Andrew
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thamp'ton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Fenby, T. D.
March, S.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Townend, A. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Varley, Frank B.


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Viant, S. P.


Greenall, T.
Owen, Major G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, J.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. I.


Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.
Wiggins, William Martin


Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayday, Arthur
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Albery, Irving James
Cooper, A. Duff
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cope, Major Sir William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cooper, J. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hamilton, Sir George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hammersley, S. S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cowan, Sir wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Atholl, Duchess of
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harland, A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Dalkeith, Earl of
Haslam, Henry C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bennett, A. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Berry, Sir George
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Bethel. A.
Dixey, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bird. E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Duckworth, John
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hills, Major John Waller


Blundell, F. N.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hilton, Cecil


Boothby, R. J. G.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ellis, R. G.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
England, Colonel A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. K.


Brass, Captain W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Briggs, J. Harold
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Buchan, John
Fermoy, Lord
Hurd, Percy A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Fielden, E. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Finburgh, S.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Burman, J. B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Iveagh, Countess of


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Forrest, W.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Con'l)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Frece, Sir Walter de
Jephcott, A. R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Cassels, J. D.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Kindersley, Major Guy M


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ganzoni, Sir John
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gates, Percy
Lamb, J. Q.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Gitmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Christie, J. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Goff, Sir Park
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Question again proposed, "That the words 'five years' stand part of the Clause."

Mr. MacLAREN: On a point of Order. I want to know exactly where we are in discussing this duty on buttons. I understand that certain recommendations have been made under the Safeguarding of Industries procedure, and I also understand that under the Safeguarding of Industries Act the recommendations of Committees set up to inquire into these matters have to be freely discussed in the House of Commons before a decision is reached as to whether the industries in question should be brought under Safeguarding or not. I want to ask you, Mr. Herbert, if it is quite in order that the dictations of the Safeguarding of Industries Act should be ignored, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should simply adopt a proposal without free discussion in the House, as he has done in this case, thus making such a Debate as we are having to-night purely futile so far as I can see. Am I right in suggesting that the procedure that we are following now is in contradistinction to the decisions laid down under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether I quite understand the hon. Member's point, but the Clause in
the Finance Bill which deals with this duty is properly founded on a Financial Resolution which has been passed by the House.

Mr. MacLAREN: May I say, with all respect, that that means that on and after this occasion the Safeguarding of Industries Act as we know it may not be operative at all, but that a Committee may report to the House, and there may be no chance of discussing its recommendations, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer may just adopt the proposals without free discussion in the House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Safeguarding of Industries Act is not under discussion at the present moment. So far as I have been able to discover while I have been in the Chair, the recommendations of the Committee have been discussed at very considerable length.

Mr. MACKINDER: Further on the point of Order. We have been presented with a White Paper headed "Board of Trade—Safeguarding of Industries," which I presume is to carry out the provisions of the Safeguarding of Industries Act——

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. MACKINDER: If that is not so, may I ask why, in connection with the
Finance Bill, we are presented with a White Paper headed "Board of Trade—Safeguarding of Industries"?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of what White Paper has been presented to the hon. Member is not a question of Order.

Mr. MACKINDER: Are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can abrogate the Safeguarding of Industries Act by introducing safeguarding proposals into the Finance Bill before the matter has been discussed through the Safeguarding procedure?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members, if they purport to rise to points of Order, to be careful that the points they raise are points of Order. [Interruption.] There is no question that this Clause in the Finance Bill, which is properly founded on a Financial Resolution, is in order, and whatever Act may have been passed previously by Parliament is not under discussion at the present time.

Mr. MACKINDER: Am I to understand that the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means is accusing us of deliberately——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will please forgive me. What I was anxious to do was to point out to him that the point he was raising about a White Paper was not strictly a point of Order. I have already ruled on the point of Order as to whether the discussion on this Clause is properly in order or not. I did not for a moment wish to accuse him of anything dishonourable or improper.

Mr. KELLY: I wish to ask that we shall be told something that is absent from the Report. We are asked to give a decision with regard to the operation of this taxation and we have not, even in the speeches of the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary, been given the information which I presume is in their possession. We are told in this paper that the Committee that sat under the Safeguarding Act considered the application with regard to the button trade, and that it seems that the wages in this, that and the other country are lower than here. Will the Minister say what are the wages and working conditions operating in the
button industry in those other countries? Quite recently, in connection with the textile trade, we had an investigation as to hours, wages and conditions of working in one of the countries in the Far East, and if a decision had been taken under the safeguarding methods of inquiry there would have been no doubt as to hon. Members opposite coming to a conclusion immediately that a tax should be imposed. But we have discovered that, despite what appeared to be a difference in wages and conditions, all the advantage was to this country with its higher wages, and better conditions. It is unfair not only to hon. Members of this House but to the country that we should be asked to vote on statements—[Interruption.] I appreciate support from the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) and I hope the statements in this paper are quite satisfactory to him, because they have not the slightest tittle of evidence. These people, who having on the first occasion decided against it, were called together in order to reverse their decision because it did not suit the Government.
Hon. Members opposite malign the workpeople of this country by declaring that we are so far behind in our methods of work and our power of production that we require the artificial aid suggested under safeguarding in order to sell our products. It is unfair to us to be asked to arrive at a decision in the absence of evidence, and I hope the Amendment will be carried. We are opposing the Government in this matter because it is not to the advantage of the people engaged in that industry. The Government are once again acting upon the suggestions made by certain hon. Members opposite—I see some of the leaders of the particular movement in front of me at this moment, particularly the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon)—whose only notion of helping industry is by the operation of safeguarding, which has not been to the advantage of any industry in this country.

Mr. HANNON: As the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has been good enough to refer to me, I hope the Committee will permit me to make one or two observations. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that the working people of this country had been
maligned on this side of the Committee. There is not a shred of foundation for that statement. The real friends of the working men in this country are the people on this side. [Interruption.] During the whole of this Debate the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite and particularly of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) have been entirely at variance with their professed friendship for the working people. The suggestion that this Committee had not carefully examined the evidence presented to them and found their conclusions after careful consideration of all the facts produced, is a gross libel on the committee. The committee, in my judgment, deserve the thanks of this House for the way in which they examined this particular application. It is a monstrous violation for hon. Members opposite to charge them with not dealing fairly and squarely with the evidence that was placed before them. When this case was brought before the Committee of Inquiry, two distinguished lawyers represented the importers, the people who opposed this application. I gather from the statements made from the opposite benches to-night that those two distinguished lawyers engaged to defend the hardly-impressed importer who was depriving British working men of their livelihood were not wiser or better able or more competent to conduct his case than the distinguished gentleman who has spoken to-night. There was not an argument produced before the Committee of Inquiry against this application that was not brought forward by these two distinguished lawyers.
If hon. Members look at pages 24 and 25 of the report of the committee, they will see the list of witnesses who gave evidence. Three witnesses were called to give evidence against this application. [Interruption.] I would like to give the Committee the names of the three witnesses, particularly two of the names. One was a gentleman bearing the high aristocratic Anglo-Saxon name of Muddimer. I would like to ask where Muddimer came from. His function was to give evidence for the importer. Another witness rejoiced in the sound Scottish name of Schwerdt. The destinies of the working men of this country must not be placed in the hands of the Muddimers and the
Schwerdts. I hope that the speeches of hon. Members opposite will be read by the trade unionists of this country. Anything more discreditable to their professed interest in the working classes of this country it would be difficult to conceive. I hope that this proposal will be carried by the Conservative majority in this House.

Mr. MacLAREN: This argument about names of a peculiar Kind appearing in these reports is not altogether in keeping with the dialectical skill and dignity of the hon. Member. May I recall to his mind that he and his party were committed to a very large subsidy for the sugar industry and that the promoters of that little scheme included gentlemen bearing such patriotic names as Van Rossum and Dr. Hirsch? I would beg the hon. Member as an Irishman, like myself, not to work up this violent enthusiasm along such a cheapjack track as that. I know that there is no patriotism to beat that of the imported Irishmen into England. If by an accident of nature the hon. Member had been born a great genius in Germany and he bore a name such as those which he has held to opprobrium to-night, the chances are that he might have been a promoter of the sugar subsidy as well as those gentlemen to whom I have referred. I ask the Committee not to take too narrow a point of view in discussing this matter. From the other side of the House recently there has been raised to the dignity of a member of the other House a gentleman who might be held up to odium because of his name and his strong accent.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a proper remark.

Mr. MacLAREN: I am sorry if I have been offensive. I did not wish to be offensive. I would be the very last to desire to be offensive. I am merely saying that the hon. Members on the other side who use such cheapjack arguments and hold up to odium men with certain names, should not forget that they have colleagues who happen to bear names which might be made fun of. It seems to me that we are entering into a new practice. The Safeguarding of Industries Bill, so far as I knew it, laid
it down that a Committee of Inquiry had to be set up and that the recommendations of the Committee should come before this House for discussion, and that after discussion a decision would be come to as to whether that industry should come under safeguarding.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER indicated dissent.

Mr. MacLAREN: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is no Act of Parliament on the subject. There is a thing called the White Paper, which has no statutory authority whatsoever. It could be ended to-morrow if the Government thought fit, without any breach of Statute. That White Paper lays down the procedure and that procedure is that there shall be an inquiry and that any duty to be imposed shall be imposed by the ordinary machinery of the Finance Bill, which is exactly the procedure which has been followed in this case.

Mr. MacLAREN: I quite appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I am sorry I made the slip about the Act, but I think the Committee as a whole at least understood that the procedure would be adhered to and there would be a free, frank and open discussion of the proposals of the Committee before any decision of a financial nature was come to. I think that was the general understanding, but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a Budget speech in which he definitely says that the tax shall have effect at once, it rather prejudices any subsequent discussion on the recommendation of the Committee. That is why I raised a point of Order. I think it is a sad pass to which we have come in 1928, that the wisdom of modern statesmen should descend to a tax on buttons and little articles like that. Indeed, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer may go down to posterity as the Woolworth Chancellor who, though a master of economic law, when in adversity finds himself, like Woolworth's, looking for sixpenny articles, and puts another halfpenny on them. That is all I have to say, but I do hope the hon. Gentleman who has
just resumed his seat will by this time have cooled down his ardour and will remember that he is an Irishman.

Mr. VARLEY: As a humble back bencher who is more or less silent, perhaps I may say a few words on this, and like the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) claim to address those on the other side as fellow-working men. I want to make an appeal that, at any rate, before this imposition is levied, we shall refer the matter back to the committee so that their conclusions may be made a little more convincing. Of the immense mass of stuff with which we Members of Parliament are furnished, I do not suppose any of us would claim that we ever read the whole. If there is a summary we generally turn to that, and I must confess that I had not realised the utter inconclusiveness of this Report until the very damaging analysis recently made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling). There is scarcely a paragraph in that Report which would carry conviction even to the minds of the most ardent supporter of safeguarding. If I were a supporter of safeguarding myself, I should like to have the satisfaction of knowing that those to whom I had confided this work had, at any rate, convinced themselves of the conclusions with which they supported their recommendations. I have no settled convictions on this matter. Fiscal policy with me is not a fetish or a religion but a matter of expediency—I do not mind making the admission—and as it is a question of expediency I am entitled to ask for the reasons for this proposal. At the present moment, no reasons have been given, and I think the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the mass of opposition which exists to the policy of safeguarding, and knowing that the committee should be more conclusive in their conclusions than the document before us indicates they were, should withdraw this proposal instead of rushing it through in a Finance Bill at the last moment, and give the committee another chance of reviewing the evidence which was laid before them.

Question put, "That the words 'five years' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 131.

Division No. 191.]
AYES.
[10.24 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Baker, Walter
Briant, Frank


Adamson, W. M. (Start., Cannock)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Broad, F. A.


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barr, J.
Bromfield, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Batey, Joseph
Bromley, S.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sexton, James


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Smillie, Robert


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dennison, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Strauss, E. A.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Edge, Sir William
MacLaren, Andrew
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thamp'ton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Fenby, T. D.
March, S.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Townend, A. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Varley, Frank B.


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Viant, S. P.


Greenall, T.
Owen, Major G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, J.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. I.


Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.
Wiggins, William Martin


Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayday, Arthur
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Hirst, G. H.
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Albery, Irving James
Cooper, A. Duff
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cope, Major Sir William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cooper, J. B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hamilton, Sir George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hammersley, S. S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cowan, Sir wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Atholl, Duchess of
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harland, A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Dalkeith, Earl of
Haslam, Henry C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bennett, A. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Berry, Sir George
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Bethel. A.
Dixey, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bird. E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Duckworth, John
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hills, Major John Waller


Blundell, F. N.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hilton, Cecil


Boothby, R. J. G.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ellis, R. G.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
England, Colonel A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. K.


Brass, Captain W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Briggs, J. Harold
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Buchan, John
Fermoy, Lord
Hurd, Percy A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Fielden, E. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Finburgh, S.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Burman, J. B.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Iveagh, Countess of


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Forrest, W.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Con'l)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Frece, Sir Walter de
Jephcott, A. R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Cassels, J. D.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Kindersley, Major Guy M


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ganzoni, Sir John
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gates, Percy
Lamb, J. Q.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Gitmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Christie, J. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Goff, Sir Park
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Oakley, T.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Loder, J. de V.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Looker, Herbert William
Penny, Frederick George
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Lougher, Lewis
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Perring, Sir William George
Storry-Deans, R.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Philipson, Mabel
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Pilcher, G.
Styles, Captain H. W.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Preston, William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Radford, E. A.
Tinne, J. A.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Raine, Sir Walter
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Ramsden, E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McLean, Major A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Ward, Lt.-Col A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Remer, J. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Rentoul, G. S.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wells, S. R.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Ropner, Major L.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wolmer, Viscount


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sandon, Lord
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Savery, S. S.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Shepperson, E. W.
Wragg, Herbert


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Skelton, A. N.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor


Nuttall, Ellis
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Warrender.

Division No. 192.]
AYES.
[10.53 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fraser, Captain Ian
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Albery, Irving James
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gates, Percy
Nuttall, Ellis


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oakley, T.


Apsley, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Goff, Sir Park
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Perring, Sir William George


Atholl, Duchess of
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pilcher, G.


Balniel, Lord
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Preston, William


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Radford, E. A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hamilton, Sir George
Raine, Sir Walter


Bennett, A. J.
Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsden, E.


Berry, Sir George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bethel, A.
Harland, A.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Remer, J. R.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Rentoul, G. S.


Blundell, F. N.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ropner, Major L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hills, Major John Waller
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hohler Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Buchan, John
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bullock, Captain M.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sandon, Lord


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Savery, S. S.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Shepperson, E. W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hurd, Percy A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Carver, Major W. H.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cassels, J. D.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Chapman, Sir S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Christie, J. A.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Storry-Deans, R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lamb, J. Q.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Cooper, A. Duff
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cope, Major Sir William
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Couper, J. B.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tinne, J. A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Loder, J. de V.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lougher, Lewis
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warrender, Sir Victor


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dawson, Sir Philip
McLean, Major A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Dixey, A. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Eden, Captain Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wood, E. (Chester, Staly'b'ge & Hyde)


Ellis, R. G.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wragg, Herbert


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mever, Sir Frank.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)



Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Finburgh, S.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, E. A.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorns, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lowth, T.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Duckworth, John
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


England, Colonel A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Fenby, T. D.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Forrest, W.
Oliver, George Harold
Wiggins, William Martin


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Gosling, Harry
Pethick-Lawrenee, F. W.
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.



Griffith, F. Kingsley
Purcell, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, to leave out the words "thirty-three and one-third," and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 226; Noes, 129.

Division No. 193.]
AYES.
[11.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Albery, Irving James
Briggs, J. Harold
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Buchan, John
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bullock, Captain M.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Apsley, Lord
Burman, J. B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Dawson, Sir Philip


Atholl, Duchess of
Carver, Major W. H.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Balniel, Lord
Cassels, J. D.
Dixey, A. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chapman, Sir S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bennett, A. J.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Berry, Sir George
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Ellis, R. G.


Bethel, A.
Christie, J. A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Fermoy, Lord


Blundell, F. N.
Couper, J. B.
Fielden, E. B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Finburgh, S.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Locker-Lampion, Com. O. (Handtw'th)
Ropner, Major L.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Loder, J. de V.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A


Frece, Sir Walter de
Lougher, Lewis
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lumley, L. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Gates, Percy
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandon, Lord


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Savery, S. S.


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Skelton, A. N.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hamilton, Sir George
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hammersley, S. S.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Harland, A.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kant)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Storry-Deans, R.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Haslam, Henry C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Tinne, J. A.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hills, Major John Waller
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hilton, Cecil
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hohler Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Nuttall, Ellis
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Oakley, T.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Watts, Sir Thomas


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Penny, Frederick George
Wells, S. R.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Perring, Sir William George
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hurd, Percy A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Pilcher, G.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Preston, William
Wolmer, Viscount


Jephcott, A. R.
Radford, E. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke Now'gton)
Raine, Sir Walter
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ramsden, E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Kindorsley, Major Guy M.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wragg, Herbert


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lamb, J. Q.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Remer, J. R.



Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Rentoul, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Major Sir William Cope and Captain Wallace.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)



Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dennison, R.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Duckworth, John
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dunnico, H.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edge, Sir William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Baker, Walter
England, Colonel A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kelly, W. T.


Barr, J.
Fenby, T. D.
Kennedy, T.


Batey, Joseph
Forrest, W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kirkwood, D.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, George


Briant, Frank
Gillett, George M.
Lawrence, Susan


Broad, A. F.
Gosling, Harry
Lawson, John James


Bromfield, William
Greenall, T.
Lee, F.


Bromley, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Brawn, James (Ayr and Bute)
Grundy, T. W.
Mackinder, W.


Buchanan, G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacLaren, Andrew


Charleton, H. C
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Cluse, W. S.
Hardie, George D.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Harris, Percy A.
March, S.


Compton, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Connolly, M.
Hayes, John Henry
Murnin, H.


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold


Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, G. H.
Owen, Major G.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palin, John Henry


Day, Harry
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Paling, W.




Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Varley, Frank B.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Viant, S. P.


Potts, John S.
Sited, Charles H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Purcell, A. A.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Richardson, B. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wellock, Wilfred


Riley, Ben
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Westwood, J.


Ritson, J.
Stamford, T. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wiggins, William Martin


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Strauss, E. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Scurr, John
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Windsor, Walter


Sexton, James
Thurtle, Ernest
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tinker, John Joseph



Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Tomlinson, R. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shinwell, E.
Townend, A. E.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 7, line 35, after the word "buttons," to insert the words "other than vegetable ivory buttons."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 224.

Division No. 194.]
AYES.
[11.15 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, George D.
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Sailer, Dr. Alfred


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth. Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Bt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Strauss, E. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Duckworth, John
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edge, Sir William
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Murnin, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


England, Colonel A.
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Owen, Major G.
Wiggins, William Martin


Forrest, W.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Paling, W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gibbins, Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gosling, Harry
Ponsonby, Arthur



Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Purcell, A. A.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Fenby.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Atholl, Duchess of
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Balniel, Lord
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Albery, Irving James
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Blundell. F. N.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Boothby, R. J. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bennett, A. J.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Apsley, Lord
Berry, Sir George
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bethel, A.
Briggs, J. Harold


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Preston, William


Buchan, John
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Radford, E. A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Raine, Sir Walter


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hilton, Cecil
Ramsden, E.


Burman, J. B.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Chariot D.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Raid, D. D. (County Down)


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Remer, J. R.


Cassels, J. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Ropner, Major L.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Christie, J. A.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Couper, J. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sandon, Lord


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Savery, S. S.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Shepperson, E. W.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Skelton, A. N.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Dalkeith, Earl of
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, J. de V.
Spender-Way, Colonel H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Long, Major Eric
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lougher, Lewis
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dixey, A. C.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lumley, L. R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Storry-Deans, R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Ellis, R. G.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
McLean, Major A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Falie, Sir Bertram G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tinne, J. A.


Fermoy, Lord
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Finburgh, S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Warrender, Sir Victor


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Watts, Sir Thomas


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wells, S. R.


Gates, Percy
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Goff, Sir Park
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wolmor, Viscount


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nuttall, Ellis
Womersley, W. J.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hamilton, Sir George
Penny, Frederick George
Wragg, Herbert


Hammersley, S. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Yerburgb, Major Robert D. T.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perring, Sir William George
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Harland, A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilcher, G.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Haslam, Henry C.
Power, Sir John Cecil
 Major Sir William Cope.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 7, line 35, after the word "buttons," to insert the words "other than shell buttons."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 222.

Division No. 195.]
AYES.
[11.25 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Broad, F. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barr, J.
Bromfield, William


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Batey, Joseph
Bromley, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Baker, Walter
Briant, Frank
Buchanan, G.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood. D.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Day, Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Stamford, T. W.


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F
Stewart, J. (St. Rolfox)


Edge, Sir William
Lunn, William
Strauss, E. A.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sutton, J. E.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mackinder, W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Forrest, W.
MacLaren, Andrew
Thurtle, Ernest


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Greenall, [...].
Murnin, H.
Varley, Frank B.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Viant, S. P.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Palin, John Henry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pethick, Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, J.


Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wheatlcy, Rt. Hon. J.


Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, W.


Hayday, Arthur
Purcell, A. A.
Wiggins, William Martin


Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, N. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji



Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John
Mr. Fenby and Major Owen


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sexton, James



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cope, Major Sir William
Hammersley, S. S.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Couper, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harland, A.


Albery, Irving James
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Haslam, Henry C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Apsley, Lord
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hilton, Cecil


Balniel, Lord
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Dixey, A. C.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bennett, A. J.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Berry, Sir George
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Bethel, A.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Ellis, R. G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Blundell, F. N.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy, Lord
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fielden, E. B.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Briggs, J. Harold
Finburgh, S.
Lamb, J. Q.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Buchan, John
Fraser, Captain Ian
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Bullock, Captain M.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Burman, J. B.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Ganzoni, Sir John
Loder, J. de V.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gates, Percy
Long, Major Eric


Cassels, J. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lougher, Lewis


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Glyn. Major R. G. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Goff, Sir Park
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Chapman, Sir S.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lumley, L. R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Christie, J. A.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
McLean, Major A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hamilton, Sir George
Macmillan, Captain H.




MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ramsden, E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Held, D. D. (County Down)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Margesson, Capt. D.
Remer, J. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Tinne, J. A.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Titchfield. Major the Marquess of


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Meyer, Sir Frank.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Ropner, Major L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Watts, Sir Thomas


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wells, S. R.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sandon, Lord
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Nuttall, Ellis
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Oakley, T.
Shepperson, E. W.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon Hugh
Skelton. A. N.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Penny, Frederick George
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wolmer, Viscount


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Womersley, W. J.


Perring, Sir William George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wragg, Herbert


Pilcher, G.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Preston, William
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



Radford, E. A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Raine, Sir Walter
Storry-Deans, R.
Captain Bowyer and Captain Wallace.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 7, line 36, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) During a period or five years beginning on the thirteenth day or June, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, a customs duty of an amount equal to twenty-five per cent. of the value of the goods shall be payable on wrought enamelled hollow-ware imported into the United Kingdom.

Mr. HARRIS: On a point of Order. I suggest that this should be brought in as a new Clause, since it entirely changes the character of the Clause. The Clause is headed "Customs duty on buttons," and I suggest that this proposal should be put in the form of a new Clause, and not as an Amendment.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On that point of Order, I venture to suggest that this follows exactly the precedent of a previous Bill, where safeguarding duties have been combined together in one Clause, and I think that that is for the general convenience, because the Subsection which applies to the various provisions of the Finance Act dealing with drawbacks and so on can be conveniently made applicable to both duties. This precisely follows the previous precedent, the only difference being that the two Financial Resolutions were passed separately.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, because the fact is not altered that
this proposal deals with an entirely different subject. Surely hollow-ware should be dealt with in a separate Clause, and should not be brought in as a Subsection under the heading "Customs duties on buttons." That is obviously wrong.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The point which has been raised was very carefully considered before I came into the Chair to-night, and my opinion is that it is quite in order to put these two duties together; and there is a certain justification, from the point of view of convenience, for doing so, in view of the way in which they are linked together by Subsection (3), which refers to the machinery under which they are collected. The fact that the marginal note in the present draft of the Bill refers only to buttons does not affect the matter, and cannot be taken into consideration at all.

Sir R. HAMILTON: May we have the marginal note?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The marginal note will be printed in due course. The marginal note is no part of the Bill.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can the President of the Board of Trade show the connection between buttons and hollow-ware?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in dealing with that now.

Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman has not given any explanation as far as I know.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not ask the right hon. Gentleman that question at present. He may get an opportunity of doing so presently.

Mr. E. BROWN: Surely we are to have an explanation from the President of the Board of Trade? We had a preliminary discussion on Friday under very great disadvantage, because the report of the Committee was only available on Wednesday night and we came on Friday morning and found the duty was there.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I did not intend any discourtesy. We discussed it for five hours on Friday and I inflicted a very long speech on the House.

Mr. SNOWDEN: It would be far more interesting if we could have a speech on this from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a new experience to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer present at a Debate on safeguarding. Hitherto he has invariably shown his contempt for this pettifogging legislation by ostentatiously leaving the House whenever a question of this sort came up for consideration, I submit that we have a right to insist that he should take charge of this new Clause. It has passed out of the category of safeguarding. It has now become purely a revenue matter that the name neither of the President of the Board of Trade nor any other Member of the Government, except the representatives of the Treasury is on the back of the Bill. This is purely a financial proposal. It does not concern the Board of Trade now in the slightest degree. It is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take charge of it, and, therefore, I must ask him, very respectfully, to get up—[Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members should laugh. I am always very respectful to right hon. Gentlemen. This is his job, I submit. I could tell a story about it. I am sure I am voicing the desire and expectation of every Member of the Committee when I say we are waiting in pleasurable anticipation to hear the right hon. Gentleman take charge of this Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am in charge of everything included in the Budget of the
year and I am responsible for everything in the Finance Bill. I accept the fullest responsibility for every proposal it contains. But since when, I should like to know, has an individual Member of the Opposition the right to dictate to the Government how they shall use such forces as are at their disposal or how they shall transact their business? The process of long and intricate discussion, when one topic succeeds another and one Amendment follows swiftly on another, has necessarily to be divided between a number of Ministers if full justice is to be done to each proposition; and the Committee is to have the guidance and services of Ministers which it no doubt requires. But, in regard to the general merits or the matter, this follows the procedure which we have appointed and prescribed by the White Paper. So far from hon. Gentlemen opposite having any ground for complaint that this procedure has led to an undue adoption of Safeguarding, there has been a very strong feeling among the party which, at any rate, is dominant in this House of Commons that the procedure of the White Paper has very rigidly and narrowly restricted the Safeguarding which it was intended by Parliament should be imposed and enforced. For my part, I would say that owing to the collapse of the Liberal party, and owing to the very shaky knowledge of economic subjects possessed by the Labour party, the Free Trade forces in this House are in a state of collapse, and they are exceedingly fortunate [...]n not being asked to consent to much more stimulating propositions than those I have made.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer chooses to be a little humorous about the economics of some people in this House. If he had paid attention, as a well-known exponent of Free Trade himself, to statements that have been made in the country by his colleagues in the Cabinet, he would have seen that it was a good thing, at any rate, for the country at large that there are some people on this side of the House who still retain great concern for the consumer in this country. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer is forgetting the reputation of his past and is failing to undertake the proper duties of Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present time, the Minister of Health has just been making peregrinations through-
out the country and has told the people at his meetings that, after all, what is really wanted is to teach the country to walk towards protection instead of running. The kind of Measure for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, now makes himself responsible is part of the programme mentioned by the Minister of Health for teaching people to walk towards protection instead of running. I wonder how the Chancellor of the Exchequer can square that with his Free Trade convictions? We shall be very interested to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say upon this matter in the country. One sees his very brilliant dialectical utterances from time to time——

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: On a point of Order. What has this to do with enamelled hollow-ware?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is leading up to it gradually.

An HON. MEMBER: He is walking.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I hope that I am to be allowed to indulge in what is always the luxury of replying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He certainly dealt with this matter when he was speaking. We shall watch with very great interest his subsequent speeches in the country, and see what he really has to say about the details of these Safeguarding Duties, of which this is one and of which he is so utterly contemptuous. The case which has not been explained to the Committee by the President of the Board of Trade, and which ought to have been explained, because he gave such short notice to the House, is one of the poorest cases ever put up for a Safeguarding Duty. I protest against the growing practice of the fiscal proposals of the Government being allowed to leak out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had some difficulty this afternoon in replying on the question of sugar and as to why information was allowed to leak out. On Friday week I drew attention to the fact that the report of a Committee, dated the 19th May, recommending a Duty on hollow-ware to the extent of 25 per cent. was made known in all its details to the trade, and a copy of the report was only made known to this
House, who had to decide the matter, on the evening of the 6th June. On the 8th June we were required to pass judgment as a House of Commons upon a fairly important fiscal proposal. We are gradually seeing a change from the old tradition in regard to the Treasury and are seeing a continuous practice growing up of people being allowed to obtain information beforehand of what is going to be the proposal of the Government in regard to levying taxation. We cannot too strongly utter a protest on a matter which affects the privilege of Members of this House, who are the custodians of the public interests. In their report of the 1928 inquiry the Committee say, in paragraph 12:
The Applicants considered that on this question the Committee's previous Report was favourable to them. This contention was not challenged by the Opposition nor was any evidence submitted to indicate any alteration in the position as regards the prices of imported goods as compared with those of the home products.
If we are to assume from paragraph 12 that the whole basis of the Committee's second report, making a recommendation for a duty, was that the opponents of the application regarded the Committee's previous report as favourable, will the President of the Board of Trade produce the first formal statement of the opposition which was submitted to the second inquiry in 1928 by the opponents. Is it not a fact that in that presentation of the formal statement of the case there was a specific objection raised, which was completely different from the conclusion arrived at in paragraph 12 of the Committee's second report? My hon. Friends have already asked in the case of the previous Duty that we should have the evidence laid. I am not hopeful that we shall get the complete evidence laid in regard to this application, but I think in view of the statement in paragraph 12 we are entitled to ask that we should have the statement that was submitted by the opponents, which statement is clearly contrary to the report of the committee in paragraph 12. The report of the committee is the result of a second inquiry. The first inquiry was held in 1926, and on four points of the six or seven on which the committee has to be satisfied before it makes a favourable report, they found that a case had not been made out for a duty. Within 18 months of that report having been re-
ceived by the Government, the Board of Trade consent to a second inquiry being held.
I am at a loss to understand why on the evidence submitted a second inquiry should have been permitted, because on the figures which are contained in the second report there is certainly no such violent change in the position as would ever have justified the reopening of the matter by the granting of a second inquiry. The figures of the imports which are contained on the fifth page of the second report do not show such extremely abnormal figures that a second inquiry should have been necessary at all. If one compares the general statistics which appear in Appendix A, not only for 1926 or 1927, but right back to pre-War years, I think it is fairly plain that there was no very fundamental change which would have justified the second inquiry at all. I do not want to go over all the ground of my objection to the report of this committee which we discussed the other Friday, but I do want to say that it is just the kind of case to illustrate what we have said so many times in regard to the safeguarding of industries. It proves to us the utter unreliability of evidence submitted to a committee of this kind, which is not a judicial committee—evidence which is not submitted on oath, but by a particular interest which desires to be the special beneficiary of the State.

Mr. HANNON: What special legislation is there?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I suppose there are other interests in the community besides these people? Those who have to pay the tax in order to give this protection are the general community. I suppose they are not to be taken into account as having any interest in the matter? You are imposing a tax of 25 per cent. to make these particular people the beneficiaries of the State. That is the position. Those of us who hold the Free Trade position have never sought to deny that if you can take out one industry quite separately without the others and give it special protection you may give specific benefits to that industry so long as you are not bringing in a genera tariff. The report of this committee proves conclusively that when you get a procedure of this kind set up, with evidence taken before a committee which
is not of a judicial character, and not taken upon oath, in order to obtain special benefits for only a limited section of the community, you find that the evidence submitted is absolutely without any reliability at all.
Take the figures of imports which were given for the early years in the table of the report. If you take the first report issued in 1926, you get certain figures of production of the whole industry. In the case of the second report the committee had to draw attention to the fact that there were new figures available with regard to the year 1924, because they had the advantage of the results of the Census of Production. You find that the people who submitted the case for a duty to the original committee in 1926 had apparently deliberately and with wilful intent understated their figures of production in order to persuade the committee to recommend a duty. The figures were absolutely disproved to the extent of only about 40 per cent. by the authorised figures obtained from the Census of Production. If this is the kind of evidence upon which a committee of this character makes recommendations to this House for the imposition of a duty, it is high time that more and more of my friends should press for the complete evidence which is laid before these committees to be made available to the House of Commons.

Mr. RADFORD: Does the hon. Member suggest that the opponents have not had an opportunity of laying full evidence before the Committee?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I suppose if an opportunity existed they would do so, if they had time. I have never concealed my connection with the co-operative movement; it is part of my life. We have to do with producers and consumers, and there have been 49 applications for safeguarding in connection with industries with which we are concerned, 36 of which failed. But how can people engaged in one industry be expected to prepare detailed evidence connected with 36 separate inquiries in a comparatively short time?

Mr. RADFORD: I never raised the question of the co-operative movement, but surely it is such a large concern that it is as easy for them to deal with 36 separate cases as it is for a small concern to deal with one?

Mr. ALEXANDER: That sounds quite easy until you get into the actual business. It is not the argument advanced by the big amalgamations and large concerns when we were discussing the Companies Bill. They said that it was quite impossible to give details of their business at short notice, and if it was quite impossible for large financial companies to supply information under the Companies Bill it is difficult for the co-operative movement to provide technical evidence and statistics in the case of 36 separate inquiries at short notice. This attempt to walk towards a general tariff is a policy out of Bedlam. The people who object to it have no opportunity of stating their case. Those opponents who do appear have a note made of their evidence, and there is nothing but sneers from hon. Members opposite because they happen to belong to a class who know something of the shipping trade, the export trade and the entrepot trade. But there is a very wide section of the community who have a right to be considered, and that is the general consumer——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that both he and the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Radford) are beginning to wander far away from the immediate subject of the Amendment.

12 m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am afraid that, as a result of the interjection, I have been developing an argument on the general procedure of safeguarding rather than on the specific Amendment. I will leave that. In this case, no evidence was given to the Committee on behalf of the consumers. The fact is that the way in which the thing is done makes it almost impossible for the general consumer to be heard, and we have to undertake in this House the task of stating the case for the consumer against impositions of this kind. We are now to have a tax of 25 per cent. put upon these utensils that are used by every housewife. It is an addition to what is already a very heavy and growing burden on the housewife. I referred yesterday to the Chancellor's special "down" on the housewife. This is another illustration of it. The Government put a 25 per cent. tax on enamelled hollow-ware, and, if I am rightly informed,
in case there may be trouble the Government are willing to consider a duty on aluminium ware also. That is to be added to the tax on the breakfast cup and saucer and the cutlery.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: And no increase in price.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I shall be very glad to prove that in regard to translucent pottery imported from Czechoslovakia you cannot buy any article at the same price as that at which it used to be bought. The consumer has to pay 33 to 40 per cent. more since the duty has been imposed.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Not in my shop. The wholesale price of the British white and gold china cup and saucer has dropped sixpence per dozen since the safeguarding duties were put on.

Mr. DIXEY: But not in the co-operative stores.

Mr. ALEXANDER: You cannot make any charges of that kind. You have only to refer to the trade inquiries that are being held to be forced to withdraw that suggestion. [Interruption.] It is no good making that suggestion, in view of what has been proved at Government inquiry after Government inquiry. I am saying specifically that you cannot obtain anywhere to-day imported translucent china (upon which a duty of 28s. a cwt. has been put) unless you pay 35 to 40 per cent. more for a particular article than you paid before the duty was imposed.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Let me say that 21-piece tea sets, for which I paid 7s. 6d. before the duty was added, I have had offered this week at the old price. I was offered eight cases.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I shall be very glad to have particulars of that offer.

The CHAIRMAN: This seems to refer to a former duty. We cannot now go into the details of the working of other duties.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I am sorry if I have been led away by the interruptions of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). Perhaps the hon. Member will get up and say that there is never going to be any increase in the price of enamelled hollow-ware after the imposi-
tion of the duty? My information is that already the wholesale price for imported enamelled hollow-ware is up. What is the object of putting on a duty unless it is to raise the price of the imported article in order to protect the home industry? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer deals with these matters he never makes any apology for it; he always tells my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) that he does not deny that duties are passed on to the consumer. That is what is being done in this case. It is quite evident that the amount of this duty is being passed on already in the price of the article, and it will continue to be passed on to the consumer. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, on another matter, has said that it ought not to be assumed that a duty always meant an increased price. The hon. Gentleman said he resented the assumption which was always made in that respect. I think we are entitled to resent the assumption that we can always trust the Protectionists and productive industry in this matter, and that, if we only give them a duty, we are sure to have a reduction, or, at any rate, no increase in prices. The effect of Protection in this country and other countries has always, in the long run, proved to be in the opposite direction.
The imposition of this duty, in my judgment, is a violation of the pledge or rather a continuation of the violation of the pledge of the Government with regard to Protection. It is true they are doing it under the name of "Safeguarding." It is true that they can pick out, here and there, a word or two in the announcement made to the country in 1924 about safeguarding, in seeking to justify their action, but, as a fact, we have seen in the last three or four years a progress by the Government towards Protection which has no precedent in the history of this country for 70 or 80 years. We have moved more rapidly towards a general tariff in the last three years than anybody, 20 years ago, could possibly have imagined, although hon. Members opposite may think that the rate of progress is much too slow for them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have that confirmation of my view. Although some hon. Members may still say that there has been no violation of the pledges of the Prime Minister in this
respect, it is plain from the general results of this taxation—which now has to be provided by the consumer to the extent of £35,000,000 to £40,000,000 a year more than in 1924—that we have made a much bigger jump towards general Protection than the people imagine. For all these reasons I oppose the duty.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I shall confine myself to this particular duty. As regards the charge that there is any breach of a pledge the hon. Gentleman appears to forget the positive pledge that in certain events we would put on safeguarding duties. I have not the least doubt that if the Government had withheld from the House of Commons proposals for such duties, where those proposals have been made in the course of this Parliament, then, indeed, we should have been guilty of a breach of a pledge—a positive pledge which we gave to the country and on which the country returned us. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I do not think there is a single person in the Committee or in the country, who, in his heart of hearts still believes that the Prime Minister has not strictly carried out his pledge.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) has employed certain arguments against this duty, and every one of those arguments is ill-founded. He began by suggesting that—apparenly in the Government Department—there had been some leakage in connection with the report on this duty. He made the charge before and having withdrawn it as a charge, he now repeats it as a suggestion. There has been no leakage on the part of any Government Department. If I wished to give away the fact of a duty having been recommended—a thing I should never dream of doing—the last people I should select would be the importers. They are the people to whom the hon. Gentleman thinks the Government, for some reason or another, gave special information in this case. The suggestion is so fantastic that I am surprised that he makes it, even at this hour of the evening. What happened, apparently, was that some of his importer friends, not being as convinced of the solidity of their case against this duty as he would, by his speech to-night, have us believe, anticipated that a duty would be recommended, and they hast-
ened to import as quickly as they could. Surely that is a very good reason, not for delaying proposing the duty to this House, but for inviting the House to pass the duty at the earliest possible moment; and I am glad to know that the House did impose that duty on the day on which it was proposed.
Then the hon. Gentleman said: Would we lay the opponents' statement of the case? No, Sir. Then he said: "I do not suppose we shall see the evidence." We know that no evidence was produced at a previous stage of this Debate. What do the Committee say? They do not say, "On the evidence we find so and so"; they say that there was no evidence produced by the opponents that the situation had changed. I do not care what people put into their statement of claim. Everybody connected with the processes of the Law Courts knows that it is not what people put into the statement of claim or into the defence that counts; it is what is produced in evidence that counts, and, if the opponents had had the least chance of proving that their case was right in this respect, does not everybody suppose that they would have produced evidence? Because they knew that there was no case, they never gave any evidence.

An HON. MEMBER: How do we know that?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Because the Committee say that.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as he attaches so much importance to the evidence rather than to the statement of claim, whether he will now submit the evidence to this Committee, which is actually the jury which has to give a decision?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already dealt with that point. This is what the Committee said:
This contention was not challenged by the Opposition, nor was any evidence submitted to indicate any alteration in prices.
I suggest to the Committee that if prices had altered, and if any case could have been made out by the Opposition, of course the Opposition would have tendered evidence upon that subject. That hon. Members opposite do not consider inquiries in safeguarding matters as
valuable as I think at one time they did is a matter which no doubt calls for consideration in the future. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) then said: "Why was the second inquiry granted? There was no ground for granting the second inquiry." A new inquiry was granted because a prima facie case had been established—and it was afterwards proved—that the facts had changed. The facts had changed on employment; there were 1,000 fewer people employed in this industry than there were two years previously. That is what the Trade Unions told us. I suppose a thousand more people out of work is no change at all, in the view of hon. Members opposite. There were 1,000 more men out of work, and, when the Government does something to put those people into work, I suggest that hon. Members opposite should support us instead of creating obstruction. Many thousands of men have been put into employment through Safeguarding. [Interruption.] I will give the Committee evidence now that people have been put into employment in this industry. The Welsh Tin Plate and Stamping Company, one of the largest companies engaged in this trade, say, first of all that no advance has been made in their prices, and they add:
It might he interesting to record that we have already experienced such an improvement in the demand since the imposition of the duty that we have increased the number of our furnaces at work, and consequently have given employment to a substantial number of idle men.

Mr. BECKETT: What is the name of the firm from which the right hon. Gentleman is quoting?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The firm is the Welsh Tin Plate and Metal Stamping Company, but does it really matter what firm it is, if they put a few more into work?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I should like to have an explanation of the statement that there was an increase of a thousand in the unemployed in the industry, having regard to paragraph 13 of the Report, which says that in 1926 the number was 3,360, and in 1927 it was 2,980.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In 1925, which was the critical year, the number employed was 3,900, and in 1927 it was 2,980. Let me be perfectly correct; 920
more people have been thrown out of employment.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that 35 per cent. of the men who handle these imports are now out of employment?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, not a bit of it. I have no doubt about this, that if you get the work done in this country, more people will come into work, and more people are in work, not only in this industry, but in the steel trade, because British steel is practically exclusively used in this trade; and if there are one or two less people employed in some port because the imports are less, there are more people employed in steel works and in rolling mills. On balance, I say without hesitation that not only are some people put directly into work by reason of the step which the House took, but that indirectly, more people are put into work also. Another reason why the circumstances had changed was that the volume of imports had entirely altered. In 1926, the volume was 7,195 tons. In 1927 it was 9,690 tons. In the first four months of this year it is at the rate of 10,500 tons a year.

Mr. ALEXANDER: How does the right hon. Gentleman calculate that last figure?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: By multiplying the figures for the four months by three.

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the figure for May, the fifth month?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The month after the duty came in? Of course, it was very small. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind hon. Members that they can speak more than once in Committee, and that these points had better be put by speech rather than by interjections.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will leave out the first four months of this year; I will make a present of that. I will not depend on that, but on the difference between the 7,200 in 1926 and the 9,700 in 1927. Those figures are good enough for my purpose. At the time of
the Coalition Government, with a Liberal Prime Minister, the duty was imposed when the import was only 7,700 tons.

Mr. BROWN: But not against all imports—only Germany.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: And 66 per cent. of the imports come from Germany to-day. I am sure that I could carry two-thirds of that party with me in favour of this duty. Then the hon. Gentleman cast a perfectly unnecessary aspersion on the honesty of the firms who gave evidence; I am not in the least surprised. He said that they have deliberately misled the Committee as to their production. They did nothing of the sort. They under-estimated—and I have no reason to suppose that they did not do it honestly—the production of other firms from whom they had no information. When you take the certified figures the case is proved up to the hilt. The hon. Member suggested that the Committee were relying on figures which were proved to be erroneous; that they took any figures which were submitted to them. But that was not at all how the Committee proceeded. The Committee called for certified figures, and it is on certified figures that this Committee are now invited to act. Then we have had the usual argument that prices will be adversely affected. There is no evidence that the price of the British article will go up, and it has not gone up. There may have been one or two cases in which the price of the foreign article has gone up—there may have been, but it is interesting to note that the argument advanced by a number of importers against the imposition of a duty was that in the case of the retail shop there was really no difference in price between the British article and the foreign article, because come middlemen got a larger profit out of dealing in the foreign article than in the British. It may have been that in one or two cases where a middleman was making a large profit out of a very cheap foreign article the cheapness of which was not passed on to the consumer at all, higher prices are being charged, but the consumer is in no way damnified in this matter. The consumer is going to get the good British article at the same price as he got it before. For all these reasons I invite the Committee to support the duty.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have now reached the time at which the House usually rises, and if the Minister responsible for this Bill had been in his place I should have asked him how far he intended to go to-night. But as there is no Minister on the Treasury Bench who is able to answer that question I am moving to report Progress.

The CHAIRMAN: I see that on this Clause a Motion to report Progress has already been negatived.

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, Sir, not on this section of the Clause. The last Motion to report Progress was moved when we were dealing with buttons. A demand had been made from these benches that the evidence on which the Committee had acted should be produced, and it was in order to allow the Government an opportunity of producing that evidence that we made that Motion. I am moving this Motion upon a different section of the

Clause and for an entirely different purpose—to ascertain how far the Government intend going.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It really is necessary to make considerable progress with this Bill to-night. Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer went out I had been discussing with him how far he thought it would be necessary to go. There are a large number of important-new Clauses to be taken to-morrow and he feels that it is essential to make considerable further progress with the Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: The proposal we are discussing was only introduced on Friday last, and now it is going to be pushed through after midnight. I think the country is entitled to have a new tax of this character discussed in the daylight.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 81, Noes, 181.

Division No. 196.]
AYES.
[12.27 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, Witt)
Hayday, Arthur
Purcell, A. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sutton, J. E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Kirkwood, D.
Townend, A. E.


Dunnico, H.
Lansbury, George
Varley, Frank B.


Edge, Sir William
Lawrence, Susan
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wiggins, William Martin


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hardie, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B. Smith.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Bullock, Captain M.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Albery, Irving James
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Carver, Major W. H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Blundell, F. N.
Cassels, J. D.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chapman, Sir S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Chilcott, Sir Warden


Balniel, Lord
Briggs, J. Harold
Christie, J. A


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Briscoe, Richard George
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Bethel, A.
Buchan, John
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, Capt, A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Remer, J. R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cope, Major Sir William
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Couper, J. B.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ropner, Major L.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kennedy, A. H. (Preston)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loder, J. de V.
Savery, S. S.


Dixey, A. C.
Long, Major Eric
Shepperson, E. W.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Laugher, Lewis
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Ellis, R. G.
Lumley, L. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Storry-Deans, R.


Fermoy, Lord
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Finburgh, S.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Ford, Sir P. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tinne, J. A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Watts, Sir Thomas


Hamilton, Sir George
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wells, S. R.


Hammersley, S. S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nuttall, Ellis
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Harland, A.
Oakley, T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Penny, Frederick George
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harrison, G. J. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wormersely, W. J.


Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Headlam, Lieut. Colonel C. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wragg, Herbert


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Preston, William



Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Radlord, E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Raine, Sir Walter
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor


Hilton, Cecil
Ramsden, E.
Warrender.


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Mr. HARRIS: I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had the courtesy to listen to the very eloquent speech of the President of the Board of Trade because he would have received a lot of illumination from it. The reason he gave for the introduction of these Safeguarding Duties and the argument he gave in their favour was that they would give a great deal of additional employment in the steel trade. We have now had four years of safeguarding, and ten years after the war there are a quarter of a million unemployed.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to this particular duty.

Mr. HARRIS: The statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman, who assisted
in the debate on these duties, that the condition of this trade was the result of the importation from abroad of enamelled hollow-ware, and that it increased unemployment. But in his own report he shows that in 1913 the imports were 12,458 tons, and in 1927, the peak year, the year singled out, they dropped from 12,000 odd tons to 9,705 tons. That does not seem to indicate that the depression in this industry is due entirely to foreign imports. He made a great point of, and quoted with satisfaction, the fact that the Liberal Coalition Government had imposed the Safeguarding Duties, but he knew very well that the reason for the imposition of the duties in those days was that it was desired to protect this country from the effects of depreciated currencies. That was the justification at that time. The German mark was it zero, and there was a policy advocated of protecting this country from
goods imported from countries where the currency was so much depreciated. The present duty is not due to depreciated currency. It is not a fair argument to jump back to the previous occasion when this duty was imposed. It is quite reasonable to say that there was another report—the 1926 report—where there was a very complete inquiry into the problem, and that the Committee definitely came to the conclusion that the duty was not necessary or justifiable. The real change was that there was a minority report. One member of the Committee, a University Professor—University Professors have a lot of leisure—spent his time trying to build up a case to justify the duty which in 1926 he wanted to impose.
The real reason why there is depreciation in the industry is not so much because of foreign imports, but because aluminium ware is taking the place of enamelled ware. It is found to be cleaner, and safer in use. That more than anything else has caused the depreciation in the enamelled ware industry not only in this country but all over the world. As a matter of fact, it is a highly specialised industry. It is shown in the report that these goods come from all parts of Europe, and that certain countries specialise in the manufacture of certain specialities. Some make frying pans, some saucepans, some teapots. One of the reasons why there has been a decrease, in the number of men employed has been the closing down of two factories. In closing down at least one of these factories, the proprietor pointed out that he was trying to produce too big a range of articles, and that he could not compete with the standardised mass production not only abroad but in this country. This firm had branches at Wolverhampton and Glasgow. The proprietors made clear that it was due to the fact that the organisation no longer suited modern requirements and that for that reason the factory was closed down. I object to this duty because it is a tax upon the consumer. It is going to make a difference, not to the most expensive articles, but to articles at a cheaper rate, articles in general use in poor households. [Interruption]. I do not understand the joke of the hon. Member for Penrith
(Mr. Dixey), and perhaps he will get up to tell the Committee what it is.

Mr. HANNON rose——[Interruption].

Mr. HARRIS rose——[Interruption].

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) resumed his seat and the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) did not rise, whereupon the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) rose.

Mr. THURTLE: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) sat down out of courtesy for the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey). May the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green not be allowed to proceed with his speech.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green can make another one. I do not apprehend where the courtesy came in. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green sat down before the hon. Member for Penrith showed any disposition to rise.

Mr. HARRIS: The hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) interrupted. I wanted to give him a chance of expressing what he desired to the Committee. He was constantly interrupting.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) cannot now rise again. He distinctly resumed his seat without the hon. Member for Penrith rising.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. The interruptions in the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) were of such a character that it was impossible for him to carry on. There is no doubt about that. He sat down seemingly at the desire of the other side and then up got the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). He got up, and because he did that, the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green lost his opportunity. I do not see why you should allow that to go on. You may think I am doing right or wrong, but you, Sir, have ruled wrongly.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green will suffer injury in the end. He may yet have an opportunity of rising. In the meantime, the hon. Member for Moseley has risen.

Mr. HANNON: I did not in the least intend to inconvenience the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). I thought he had finished his speech, and I only rose to enter a protest against the attack made upon Professor Kirkaldy, a distinguished University professor who was discharging a great public work in these Committees. This eminent University professor, this eminent scholar, had leisure——

Mr. KIRKWOOD: He had a lot of leisure like you and me.

Mr. HANNON: I do not interrupt the hon. Member.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You did not play fair to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green.

The CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green told the Committee that this distinguished professor had leisure time upon his hands and employed that to work up a case to please the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. HARRIS: I did not say working up a case for the pleasure of the President of the Board of Trade. What I said was that he used his leisure time to collect information.

Mr. HANNON: That only emphasises the atrocious attack which has been made. The hon. Member applied to a very distinguished member of this Committee, charged with the responsible task of examining evidence, and forming a judgment on a matter of great importance and public interest, the statement that he proceeded to work up a case to favour a particular official. That was a statement which the Committee should not countenance. The real point is in paragraph 13 of the Report of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken might read that with profit. He reads with profit most things no doubt, and I hope he will read this with profit and learn the propriety of speaking kindly of people who are outside this House. The paragraph reads:
We have received fuller and more reliable evidence on this occasion from both Employers and Trade Union representatives.
Hon. Members opposite have no respect for their own trade union representatives.

Mr. HARDIE: May I say a word?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. HARDIE: My point of Order is that hon Member having pinched the time of another hon. Member——

Mr. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. HANNON: I am in the recollection of the Committee. I have not pinched anything. I am endeavouring to save the character of a public servant being pinched by an hon. Member. I was drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that the hon. Gentleman, in attacking these proposals and criticising the recommendations of the Committee and bringing protests against the President of the Board of Trade, leaves out of account tire fact that trade union leaders desire these safeguards as much as employers. If the hon. Gentleman who spoke against the previous proposal had been in conversation, as I was, with representatives from an industry he would have learned that that is so. You cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. You have to have some regard for the representatives of your own trade unions. An effort was made with reference to another industry, in which a deputation of trade unionists came to this House and saw me with other hon. Members and asked for safeguarding so be introduced. But I go on to complete the paragraph which the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green did not read. After representations made by the trade union representatives, they say,
It was shown that in September, 1925, approximately 3,900 persons were employed by makers of wrought enamelled hollow-ware known to the applicants. After making full allowance for the numbers employed by the small minority of firms in respect of whom certified returns were not submitted, it would appear that the average number of persons engaged in this trade during 1926 was 3,360, while the average for 1927 falls to 2,980 persons.

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the hon. Member read on!

Mr. HANNON: I have quoted the figures from paragraph 13 of the Report.
The practical proposition before the Committee is this: Are we to take steps to provide the opportunity for employment for those people who have lost their occupation from one year to another? When hon. Members on the other side oppose measures of this kind, they are, as a matter of fact, taking steps to prevent people in this country from getting the opportunity to get back into employment. We on this side are doing what we can in these safeguarding measures to broaden opportunities of employment. The whole of this debate from the other side has been an assault on the self-respect of the working-men of this country. They have no consideration for the working-men. Every act they perform here is fighting against their best interests, and I hope the Committee will carry this Amendment by a great majority.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), who has just spoken, might very well have completed the next sentence after paragraph 13 when he was referring to the question of unemployment. The salient words following the quotation of the hon. Member are as follows:
As this industry is not separately distinguished in the Ministry of Labour returns, we have not been able to rely on any official information as to the numbers unemployed or on short time.
That rather discountenances the previous statement.

Mr. HANNON: Please go on.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It rather discountenances the statement about the 3,360 and 2,980.

Mr. HANNON: Read the sentence about the trade unions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member will be patient, I will recall to him another paragraph of the Report—Section 5—where the inquirers have to make the statement that the applicants submitted figures representing that they were approximately 55 per cent. on the whole of the producers of enamelled hollow-ware, but, later on, they found that
The results of the Census of Production of 1924, only available to us since the date of our last report, however, show that
the proportion of the trade in the hands of these few firms was smaller than they had assumed.
Apparently, 50 per cent. of the producers were in no way identified with the application which was made on the White Paper procedure. One must conclude that they, at least, were satisfied without any imposition in the shape of a further duty. I want to draw attention to the part played by Professor Kirkaldy in these two inquiries. In 1926, Professor Kirkaldy is one of three persons called upon to institute this inquiry. They took evidence, and Professor Kirkaldy signed a minority report, and, in view of the fact that his fiscal predilections are well known, it seems to me that this special minority report is probably the chief justification for the second Report of 1928. I would like to suggest that there seems to be more than an atom of justification for assuming that this Professor has been very largely the inspiration of the second Report. In the second Report, paragraph 26, hon. Members will find that the Committee have taken—[Interruption.].

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to allow the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) to proceed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I want to draw attention to paragraph 26 of the second Report, where it is stated that
Due to further evidence and the knowledge gained from Professor Kirkaldy's visits to seven of the English works, we are satisfied that the industry is being conducted with reasonable efficiency and economy.
In the first place, this Professor signed a minority report in favour of Protection. He is known to be a supporter of Protection, and he is the very person who is permitted to pay visits to seven factories, and whose evidence, apparently, is the guiding influence when this second Report is drawn up. It is fair to assume that this is Professor Kirkaldy's report, that it is based on his fiscal predilections, and that no—[Interruption.].

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to pay some respect to the Chair. If there be something that is distracting their attention. I would suggest that it might be removed.

Mr. HARDIE: Since the Committee is not concentrating on business, should I be in Order in moving to report Progress?

The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Williams.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I should be very sorry to intervene between hon. Members and their hilarity. If the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Peter Macdonald) has some real pearl of wisdom that he would like to share with hon. Members, I suggest that he takes it to the Dining Boom. To come back to the question of hollow-ware. The hon. Member for Moseley referred to the question of unemployment. It is not so much a question of creating unemployment because one industry is flagging for the moment as really diverting the workers to some other industry, and, from that point of view, it seems to me that the argument advanced has not been on very sound ground. There is another submission I should like to make. In both of these reports reference is made as to conditions of labour abroad and to hours of labour worked by the workpeople in Germany and elsewhere. These are really the justification for the second report which this Committee of inquiry has submitted to the House and with which we are dealing at this moment. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many more times he is coming along with proposals of duties of 25 or 33 per cent. on articles which are in general use, because the Continental workers work longer hours than the British workers? How many more times will he come forward with that kind of argument when he knows that he and his Government are more responsible for the regularisation of the hours of labour in this country and on the Continent than anyone else? They could have regularised hours in both, and I hope the Committee will not be carried away, but will insist upon something much more solid and substantial than any argument that the right hon. Gentleman has submitted this evening.

Mr. PALING: It appears to me that this report is drawn up much more carefully than the last one. But, even so, I do not think it can be taken to be a conclusive report in favour of the tariff being put on. There are one or two criticisms which I should like to make. One of the arguments put forward by the Board of Trade is the increase of imports. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Committee of Inquiry referred to the
years 1921 and 1922 and 1926 and 1927, and they said
It will be noted that the average importation for 1921 and 1922, the two years considered at our last inquiry as most fair and normal for comparative purposes, is 8,134 tons, while that for 1926 and 1927, the two years under review, the figure rises to 8,519 tons.
That is an increase, but it is not the increase of the character that the President tried to make out and would have us believe. I want to refer to the question of the number of men out of work. If we can do anything to find work let us do it, but I am not convinced that this is the right method. On page 9 of the report, I find that the total home production as submitted by applicants in 1925 was 9,480 tons, and in 1927, 8,737. That has been the reason for some of it, not all of it. Again, in regard to this question of the reduction of men, would the President of the Board of Trade himself dare to argue that all of it has been due to competition from Continental countries. If so, cannot we argue the same with regard to the coal industry? We in that industry have lost more men than any body, and I submit that the same causes operate in regard to this business also. When you take into consideration these two points, the number of men reduced in the industry by this competition is very small indeed. That argument does not hold much water. Another question taken into consideration is that of wages and hours. The President of the Board of Trade was careful to point out that Germany was responsible or 66 per cent. of our imports two-thirds of the total. I notice in the report it says:
In the case of the important German works we were informed that the 'weekly earnings' of skilled men, including certain family allowances and increased rates in respect of any hours worked in excess of 48 Hours per week, ranged from 57 marks to 67 marls per week of 52 hours. This is equivalent to from 1.11 marks to 1.29 marks (or 1s. 1½d. to 1s. 3½d.) per hour.
My point is that these rates of pay are near British rates of pay. There is not a great deal of difference. The second point I wish to make is that the Committee admit that the rates of pay have been getting nearer to British rates of pay and that the number of hours worked in Germany lave been going down. The number of hour in Germany is now 48, and I doubt whether the hours in this
country are below 48. So, taking Germany as our biggest importer with whom we have to compete in hour and wages, they are not so very much below those of this country and have a tendency to come nearer. From the point of view of imports, from the point of view of reduction of men, and from the point of view of wages and hours of our chief competitor the case for the duty has not been made out.

Mr. KELLY: In his enthusiasm, one of the hon. Members came to the defence of Professor Kirkaldy. I do not think there was any necessity for him to do so. If the Committee will look at the report, they will find justification for any criticism offered in regard to Members of the Committee that made the report. The same people set to consider this question in 1926 presented a report, or rather two different reports, and one of the reports, from Professor Kirkaldy, made it clear that, no matter what evidence was placed before him, he was quite prepared to agree that there should be taxation imposed.

Mr. HANNON: The suggestion in the hon. Member's speech is really reprehensible. He says, in effect, that Professor Kirkaldy would accept no evidence other than that which would tend to bring about the conclusion in favour of safeguarding. Where does the hon. Member find warrant for that statement?

Mr. KELLY: I am not going to accept anything but evidence.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I call the attention of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) to the two reports. In the first report, Professor Kirkaldy says:
I have formed the opinion that the working hours of a week in Germany, our chief competitors, are longer than those worked in this country.
In the second report, the statement is made as to the hours of labour in Germany:
The hours of labour in Germany, the only country in respect of which evidence was submitted, are normally restricted to 48 hours a week.
That does not give currency to the idea that Germany was working for less money. In any circumstances, it does not Support the claim for this duty.

Mr. KELLY: The point is that reservations in the special report show very clearly Professor Kirkaldy's mind worked in the direction and only in the direction of a tariff. One expects references made to him as a learned professor at the University. I pay all tribute to those who are acting in that capacity, but, when you bring them into contact with industry you are taking them out of their element. Professor Kirkaldy was taken out of his element without any experience of management, or methods of production, without experience of the control of men, women, boys and girls engaged in industry in this country. He went round to the various places—not the whole of the Committee, not his trade union colleague or the chairman—but he himself. He had given a minority report in favour of the tariff in 1926, and then he went round the places in order to decide that they were the most perfect organisation so far as the carrying on of the industry was concerned that it was possible to find. Surely, that is not good enough for us in 1928? I submit that such a report would not have stood for a moment in a conference between trade unionists and employers. This report on the industry would not be accepted by any conference. We are not given any evidence but are expected to accept what this trade union official, this professor, and this chairman have said as the last word. I do not know why it is brought to us at all or why, without any evidence, we should be expected to go into the lobby and say that the Committee must be right and agree to the tariff being placed upon the products of this particular industry.

Mr. HANNON: Does the hon. Gentleman contend that trade union members contest that position?

Mr. KELLY: I cannot understand why the trade union member of that Committee accepted this type of statement. I cannot, because on the statement submitted to us, the conclusion arrived at for twenty-five per cent. is unwarranted, and we have no evidence. I am coming to one or two statements of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) which he gave a few moments ago. I am coming to those trade union officials to whom he referred. I am stating that I cannot understand the conclusion arrived at by these people on the statement given in the white Paper. I do not
know whether the hon. Member has the shorthand notes and whether he knows much of the evidence submitted. If he does, that certainly is not fair to us, and it is not fair to the Committee that we should be asked blindly to be obedient to the Report of these people. We were told that trade union officials gave evidence, and we read so in paragraph 13 of this Report. I understand that the hon. Member for Moseley made it appear to this Committee that the trade unionists were represented—that the trade unionists concerned in the enamelled hollow-ware industry were represented at this inquiry. I can assure the Committee——

Mr. HANNON: I have the case in the Report.

Mr. KELLY: I am going to show that this Report ought not to be accepted by the Committee. Trade Unions concerned in this industry, not only the Welsh tin-plate at Llanelly, but in other parts of South Wales and in districts of the Black Country as well as in districts further north, where you find the enamelled hollow-ware industry—these unions wore not represented at the inquiry. They were not asked to give evidence. Then we are told that the Trade Unions gave evidence on the tariff being imposed. That is not true. The unions concerned were not invited. One or two might have been. I note a reference made lower down to the industries—sheet metal workers, fusers, picklers and others engaged with the plates. The suggestion to the Committee is that the sheet metal workers' Trade Union was represented, and that the general body of those engaged in the industry was represented. As one hon. Member reminds me, it would have been interesting to the Committee if the hon. Member for Moseley had told us what Union those people who came to the House to see him represented. I have a great admiration for the hon. Member.

Mr. HANNON: It was a deputation of workers in the glass trade.

Mr. KELLY: I accept that. That was not enamelled hollow-ware. We thought it was something connected with enamelled hollow-ware. Professor Kirkaldy told us whether this industry was properly conducted, and then we were
reminded of the smaller production from the industry. We were not told why there was this lessened production. The inference drawn was that it was due to imports from other countries. Is it not in the knowledge of the Committee that changes are taking place in the material used for the manufacture of this type of article? The aluminium trade is being developed largely in this country in its raw material state and partly-manufactured stare. That is the material that is displacing much of the enamelled hollow-ware which has been the subject of this inquiry. There is not a word about that I do expect a professor to be scientific in an inquiry. A Member of Parliament has always to be scientific and never depart from the truth. He is in a representative capacity, and it is not of himself he should be thinking at all, but those whom he represents. I submit to the Committee that much of the lessening of production in the enamelled hollow-ware trade is due to the change that has taken place by the use of aluminium. I do not know whether it is suggested that a safeguarding duty should be imposed on aluminium. We should need to say something about that. I am concerned very much with aluminium, not only in its raw state as imported into this country, but as made up into sheet and rolls and the finished articles sold over the counter. If there is an attempt to impose a tariff with regard to that particular stage of industry, I think there will be trouble.
I notice that the President of the Board of Trade tells us about the Welsh tinplate works at Llanelly, of how they have reopened two since the tariff was imposed, and that they now employ a greater number of people. But did the Welsh tinplate company tell him they are not solely engaged upon enamelled hollow-ware. There is no suggestion as to which side of the manufacture of this big company the greater number of people are now employed. It is just like many of the figures presented to this Committee for safeguarding purposes. Figures are given in order to try to bring out the position best suited to the individual presenting these figures. I think it is unfair and unjust to this Committee that we should be asked to approve this tariff in this form. I really hope that there will be some regard for industry and that the regard will play some part
in the minds of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have not seen anything of it up to the present. I say so as one desirous of seeing our industries prosperous. An hon. Member over there laughs. I am concerned with the firms with which he is connected. I am concerned with those firms in which he holds directorates. I am concerned with the men and women who are employed there and who have a greater concern in it, because they depend on it for their bread and butter every week. I want to see these industries prosperous for the purpose of providing wages and bread and butter for the people whom I represent. [Laughter.] There is no need for the hon. Member to laugh. I hope there is going to be a greater regard for the industry than is shown by this method of dealing with it, and I hope that, even at this late hour, we shall show our objection to the imposition of these tariffs, because they are of no advantage to the industries with which they deal.

Mr. DIXEY: Hon. Members opposite always dislike to hear statements made which hit them when they are expressing doctrines which they know are not represented in their constituencies. Hon. Members on the other side come here and complain about an industry being safeguarded when that industry has been safeguarded after the most difficult possible procedure. There are a lot of people on this side who believe that the pledges of the Government, given to the electorate before the last General Election, were definitely that any British industry which suffered unfairly from foreign competition should ipso facto be entitled to a measure of safeguarding. [An HON. MEMBER: "Humbug!"] It is all very well to say "Humbug," but there were large numbers of people, at any rate of my persuasion, who supported the Conservative Government on the lines of a safeguarding policy for trades hit by unfair foreign competition.

Mr. OLIVER: Never!

Mr. DIXEY: It is all very well to say "Never." If hon. Members are judging their own pretences and performances by the desires of people on this side of the Committee, they do probably fail in their appreciation of our motives. [Interruption.] I do not mind interruption. I
merely say that the Government's pledge was the safeguarding of British industries hurt by foreign competition. As far as I am concerned, I say to the President of the Board of Trade that I believe that these Committees are unfair to the British manufacturers. I believe that any trade in this country which could show unfair competition from abroad should be entitled as a matter of course to protection, which it would get in any other country except this.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Show to whom?

Mr. DIXEY: Show to the Board of Trade, which represents the Government. I think the Board of Trade and the Government were quite sufficient to decide this matter, but in their greater wisdom the Government, in order to keep loyally to the pledge given by the Prime Minister against a general tariff, have provided the most strict rules and regulations before any industry can get the slightest bit of protection against foreign competition. It seems to me such a farce for Liberal Members to talk in the country about a general tariff, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) says to-night that these are nothing but pettifogging little measures. We are told by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that they are pettifogging little measures, and yet the leader of the Free Trade wing of the Socialist party tells us that the Hollow-ware Duty is a matter of great economic importance. You cannot have is both ways. Either this is a big measure and a new fiscal policy, or else it is a pettifogging measure. If it is such a pettifogging measure, why do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen keep us up at 1.30 discussing something that they consider relatively unimportant? By the passing of this particular safeguarding measure, we are asking for protection for an important British industry. I would like to read the names of the various gentlemen who opposed this safeguarding measure. I do not say this with any feeling of dislike against the Germans; they are perfectly entitled to trade here as much as we let them, but, if I sat on a Committee and had to listen to witnesses, I would tend to believe the evidence of the English manufacturers rather than the evidence of five out of seven on the other side who were Germans or connected with German
firms. So far from feeling that the trade or this country is getting its proper share of protection by these committees, I think we are not getting anything like a fair show. We have only had nine measures of safeguarding granted out of, I think, 49 applications, and, so far from any complaint being being made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, those who worship at the shrine of Free Trade ought to go down and worship at the shrine of the gentlemen in the Conservative party who have so well upheld their case as to insist on these very strict regulations being carried out before any duty is given.

Mr. CRAWFURD: In spite of what the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) has said, it has been well worth while sitting up until this time in order to hear his speech. I want, however, to point out to him one or two delusions from which he is suffering. He tells us that we are in some sort of a dilemma, and that we cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, we are told that these are pettifogging measures, and, on the other hand, we are told that they are great economic matters. Well, one case of small-pox is a small matter, but an epidemic is very serious, and we believe that every single safeguarding duty is a blow aimed directly at the prosperity of this country. Just as a medical officer of health isolates a case of small-pox or other infectious disease because of the danger of spreading, so we believe that this mendicant attitude, this desire to get something out of the pockets of the consumer without any corresponding effort on the part of the producer, this whining about unfair competition, should be isolated. The hon. Member who has just spoken in his own speeches said at the last General Election with some others that they appealed to the electorate on the basis that the Prime Minister said that any industry suffering from unfair competition should receive a measure of protection. Does the hon. Member say that to-day? When he talks about unfair competition, he begs the whole question. We had an extraordinarily good example in the last Clause when we were discussing buttons. I would ask the Committee to take notice of all this kind of argument against which we have to contend. We have asked over and over again that we should be allowed to see the evidence on which these cases are
based. I understand in the discussion on the last Clause that the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) has been shown the evidence.

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member places hid own interpretation on that.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I am very happy to have drawn that from the hon. Member. He told us at great length all about what the counsel who appeared for the duties said.

Mr. HANNON: I did not say a single word about that. I only pointed to the fact that learned gentlemen had been there, and no doubt made a favourable case.

Mr. CRAWFURD: What the hon. Member said was that these learned gentleman had been there and had used arguments far more cogent and powerful than had been advanced here.

Mr. HANNON: I have no doubt that they did.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The point is what the hon. Member for Penrith brought out so clearly. The great complaint I have is the total and complete lack of patriotism of the supporters of this policy. Do hon. Members opposite who say that British industry cannot compete with the foreigners on equal terms——

Mr. DIXEY: The Amendment goes rather to meet our contention. Supposing we had two shops in this country, one shop on one side of the street and another on the other side. One shop pays so much per week in wages and works so many hours while the other pays what it likes and works as long as it likes. Are they trading on an equal basis?

Mr. CRAWFURD: Allow me to say that the hon. Member in his recent speech which he has made has confirmed again what we always said, that in Continental countries you get bad conditions. But let me return to the point which I wish to make about the names of the people who gave evidence. It does not matter what the name is or what the names of the people are who gave evidence. What does matter are the facts advanced. Until we can see that evidence this Committee cannot properly come to a conclusion.

Mr. E. BROWN: I want to deal with one point, because I think it is of some importance. The President of the Board of Trade referred to the arguments produced in the report about imports. In the report it shows that the retained imports had increased in 1927 to 9,690 tons. Then he went on to argue from that that if the conditions in 1922 were shown to be less, that was a very powerful argument for proceeding with the duty. The question was not as to the first four months of the year, but the first five months of the year. The right hon. Gentleman tried to escape from the question. In April, 1928, the year used by the right hon. Gentleman, we have 1,426, but in the month of May, the month before the President of the Board of Trade came down and recommended the Financial Resolution upon which the tax is based, the imports had fallen to 770 tons; and I venture to say that before the Debate concluded it was worth while calling the attention of the Committee to the fact that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was completely fallacious. One hon. Member said you cannot have it both ways, but his own President of the Board of Trade has it both ways. He sets up a Committee on an industry which has selected itself, according to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade, and the Committee begins to discuss a duty of this kind. The result is that everyone soon knows that there will probably be a decision in favour of the duty. It was common rumour weeks before that the conclusions of the Committee would be in the direction in which they were found to be. People began to make larger demands and larger orders, and, immediately that process has taken place, in order that the goods may be bought before the application of the duty, the President of the Board of Trade comes down and says, "We ought to have the duty, because of the larger demands for the goods created by the demand for the duty." So the President of the Board of Trade has it both ways. It is true that, though the rate was 10,500 tons a year for the first four months the average was not maintained in the fifth month or in the sixth or seventh months. The fact is that the whole of these reports are very specious pieces of special pleading.
All these duties have been made on documents which are some of them more definite than others. The present one is one of the more definite, but in all the cases they are based upon evidence which no Member of this Committee has seen. The second point I want to put is that when the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) raised the question of the prices the Opposition made no statement with regard to evidence. The President of the Board of Trade goes further than that. He refuses to submit the statement of claim upon which the evidence is made. I will go so far as to assert that the statement of claim, when produced, will be found to contain the very statement which the Committee denied was made. The whole of these duties are dangerous in my judgment. One tariff for a particular trade is much more dangerous than a general tariff, especially when it is applied as in this case to finished articles bought by the home consumer. If one of the great industries of the land, manufacturing a semi-manufactured article, had managed to come before the Committee, we would have heard the consumers of the raw material making their protest against this method of taxing by select Committees.

Mr. RADFORD: May I ask the hon. Member this: Does he agree that out of 49 applicants for safeguarding some 40 have been declined and only nine granted, and how does he reconcile the fact that 40 have been declined and nine granted with his remarks on special pleading?

Mr. BROWN: The answer is that it is the same all the way round. I am no more satisfied with the contents of the reports of the 40 than the nine. I think the whole method is pernicious. In the first case, my reply is that when the applicants were asked as to the number of men employed in the industry they gave certain figures. When the census of production returns came out their figures were found to be partial. I say that the whole system is one of special pleading, and hon. Members opposite would be far more honest with themselves and the country if they came straight out and argued the Protectionist cause on a Protectionist basis on the ground of a general tariff.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the words "five years" and to insert instead thereof the words "one year."
I think it is very necessary that we should limit the time. We want to divide

upon this Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Question put, "That the words 'five years' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 67.

Division No. 197.]
AYES.
[2.2 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fraser, Captain Ian
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Albery, Irving James
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Power, Sir John Cecil


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Preston, William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Radford, E. A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Raine, Sir Walter


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ramsden, E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Goff, Sir Park
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Barclay, Harvey, C. M.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Red.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Bethel, A.
Hammersley, S. S
Ropner, Major L.


Bitchall, Major J. Dearman
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harland, A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Blundell, F. N.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, Henry C.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Savery, S. S.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Shepperson, E. W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hilton, Cecil
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Buchan, John
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Carver, Major W. H.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Storry, Deans, R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cooper, A. Duff
Loder, J. de V.
Tinne, J. A.


Cope, Major Sir William
Long, Major Eric
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Couper, J. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Wells, S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Dixey, A. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ellis, R. G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Wragg, Herbert


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-S.-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.


Finburgh, S.
Oakley, T.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Day, Harry
Hirst, G. H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dunnico, H.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Edge, Sir William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Batey, Joseph
Fenby, T. D.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Bromfield, William
Gillett, George M.
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kennedy, T.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Kirkwood, D.


Buchanan, G.
Grundy, T. W.
Lawson, John Janie.


Charleton, H. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lunn, William


Compton, Joseph
Hardie, George D.
Mackinder, W.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Harris, Percy A.
MacLaren, Andrew


Crawford, H. E.
Hayday, Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Murnin. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Oliver, George Harold
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Westwood, J.


Paling, W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph
Windsor, Walter


Potts, John S.
Townend, A. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Purcell, A. A.
Varley, Frank B.



Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Scurr, John
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Sitch, Charles H.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) wishes to move the next Amendment.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out the word

"twenty-five," and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."

Question put, "That the word 'twenty-five' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 67.

Division No. 198.]
AYES.
[2.10 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fraser, Captain Ian
Oakley, T.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Albery, Irving James
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Preston, William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Radford, E. A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Goff Sir Park
Ramsden, E.


Balniel, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bethel, A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ropner, Major L.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harland, A.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, Henry C.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Savery, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Shepperson, E. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hilton, Cecil
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Buchan, John
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Carver, Major W. H.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Storry-Deans, R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cooper, A. Duff
Loder, J. de V.
Tinne, J. A.


Cope, Major Sir William
Long, Major Eric
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Couper, J. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wallace, Captain C. [...].


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Wells, S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Dixey, A. C.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ellis, R. G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Wragg, Herbert


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C



Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Falie, Sir Bertram G.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender


Finburgh, S.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Buchanan, G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bromfield, William
Charleton, H. C.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Compton, Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles H.


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Day, Harry
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dunnico, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Edge, Sir William
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, P. W.
Windsor, Walter


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, G. H.
Purcell, A. A.



Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 69.

Division No. 199.]
AYES.
[2.18 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis, E.
Penny, Frederick George


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Albery, Irving James
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Preston, William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Radford, E. A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wlifrid W.
Goff, Sir Park
Raine, Sir Walter


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsden, E.


Balniel, Lord
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bethel, A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harland, A.
Ropner, Major L.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Savery, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hilton, Cecil
Shepperson, E. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Buchan, John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Carver, Major W. H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Chapman, Sir S.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Christie, J. A.
Lamb, J. Q.
Starry-Deans, R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cooper, A. Duff
Loder, J. de V.
Tinne, J. A.


Cope, Major Sir William
Long, Major Eric
Titchfield, Major the Marquess or


Couper, J. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Wells. S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Ellis, R. G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Wragg, Herbert


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C



Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Finburgh, S.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Sir Victor Warrender.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Oakley, T.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Buchanan, G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bromfield, William
Charleton. H. C.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Batey, Joseph
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Compton, Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scurr, John


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sltch, Charies H.


Dalton, Hugh
Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Day, Harry
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dunnico, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Edge, Sir William
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Fenby, T. D.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline),


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Westwood, J.


Hardie, George D.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Harris, Percy A.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Windsor, Walter


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.



Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Purcell, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I beg to move, in page 7, line 40, to leave out the words "fastening or."
Now we return to the buttons. I want to give in a few sentences my reasons for this Amendment. I believe it has been argued that it is impossible to distinguish between buttons used for fastening or buttons used for decorating. If that be so, I fail to understand why the words fastening and decorating appear as two

separate words in the Bill. The effect of the tax put on buttons is to put a tax upon decency. It is on these grounds that I move the Amendment standing in my name.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 63.

Division No. 200.]
AYES.
[2.29 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Finburgh, S.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francie E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Balniel, Lord
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Bethel, A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Goff, Sir Park
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Blundell, F. N.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hammersley, S. S.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Preston, William


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Harland, A.
Radford, E. A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Raine, Sir Waiter


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ramsden, E.


Buchan, John
Haslam, Henry C.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bullock, Captain M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Christie, J. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cope, Major Sir William
lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Couper, J. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Savery, S. S.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shepperson, E. W.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovl')
Long, Major Eric
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lougher, Lewis
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Storry-Deans, R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lumley, L. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Ellis, R. G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Tinne, J. A.


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde).


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Watts, Sir Thomas
Wragg, Herbert


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Wells, S. R.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern.



Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston, on-Hull)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Mr. Frederick Thomson and Mr. Penny.


Warrender, Sir Victor
Womersley, W. J.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Can nock)
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, Ernest


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda).


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Day, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Edge, Sir William
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Fenby and Mr. Crawfurd.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 7, line 42, at the end, to insert the words
and the expression 'wrought enamelled hollow-ware' means wrought enamelled hollow-ware, whether of iron or steel, of a description commonly used for domestic purposes.
This definition limits the duty to domestic hollow-ware.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I do not think it is treating the Committee fairly to move an Amendment of this kind without any sort of explanation at all. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what articles will be excluded from the scope of the duty? There must be some specific reason for the adding of these words by the President of the Board of Trade. There is a whole number of articles manufactured by the enamelled hollow-ware trade which it is now the intention of the Government to exclude from the Bill. I think we are entitled to ask what articles it is proposed to exclude by putting these words into the Bill. It is very significant that the Government are putting in words of this kind. It is the poor housewife again who will pay. If any of these articles were by any chance to be used as raw materials for industrialists or business men who have so many friends in the Government, they would not be chary of keeping the house up at this time of the morning. When it is possible to confine
the operation of the duty to the ordinary consumer, the housewife, then of course these bold and brave Protectionists can go straight ahead. I think we ought to have some explanation.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are three answers. The first is that it does not apply to enamel ware other than domestic hollow-ware; the second is that the report did not recommend the duty on anything except domestic hollow-ware; and the third is that the resolution authorises this duty and no more. The articles excluded are those not used for domestic purposes.

Mr. HARRIS: You put the words "except children's toys" in the recommendations for the Committee. Are we to understand that these are excluded?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Children's toys are not commonly used for domestic purposes.

Mr. HARRIS: This expert Committee, whom we are told gave many months to the study of this subject, have felt it necessary. I did not say it was necessary. The Committee say:
All imported hollow-ware, whether of iron or steel for domestic use, except children's toys.
I believe there must be some reason obviously for not including children's toys. I think we ought to have some
proper definition and explanation of what the words "domestic use" include.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: They include those articles which housemaids, for instance, use.

Mr. HARRIS: Does it include things in the kitchen, such as saucepans, frying pans, and candlesticks? Does it include baths, for there are many houses where there are no fixed baths, where enamelled baths are used? We ought to have a clearer definition before we impose a tax. We do not want lawyers to be kept busy. We are entitled to know how many articles are going to be taxed. It

is so easy lightly to pass a duty through on the recommendation of three experts, but even these gentlemen cannot say what articles are included. The President of the Board of Trade makes a cheap joke about housemaids. We have heard of housemaid's knee. It is a new Parliamentary expression that things will be taxed which housemaids use. We have got into a very comic state when we can pass duties in this frivolous way without knowing what things will be taxed.

Question put: "That these words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 63.

Division No. 201.]
AYES.
[2.45 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Albery, Irving James
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Power, Sir John Cecil


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Preston, William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Radford, E. A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Golf, Sir Park
Ramsden, E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bethel, A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ropner, Major L.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harland, A.
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, Henry C.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Savery, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Shepperson, E. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Staney, Major P. Kenyon


Buchan, John
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Bullock, Captain M.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Carver, Major W. H.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Christie, J. A.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Storry-Deans, R.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Long, Major Eric
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cooper, A. Duff
Lougher, Lewis
Tinne, J. A.


Cope, Major Sir William
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Couper, J. B.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lumley, L. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wells, S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Womersley, W. J.


Ellis, R. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wragg, Herbert


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.



Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Oakley, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Finburgh, S.
Penny, Frederick George
Sir George Hennessy and Mr. Frederick Thomson.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Bondfield, Margaret
Compton, Joseph


Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Crawfurd, H. E.


Batey, Joseph
Buchanan, G.
Dalton, Hugh


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Charleton, H. C.
Day, Harry


Dunnico, H.
Lawson, John James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Edge, Sir William
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Fenby, T. D.
Mackinder, W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Townend, A. E.


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Murnin, H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Wellock, Wilfred


Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.
Westwood, J.


Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, G. H.
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles H.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Thomas Henderson.


Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.



Kennedy, T.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to move, in page 8, line 4, to leave out the word "duty" and to insert instead thereof the word "duties."

Question, "That the word 'duty'

stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question put, "That the word 'duties' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 143: Noes, 63.

Division No. 202.]
AYES.
[2.54 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Albery, Irving James
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Alexander Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Preston, William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Radford, E. A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Goff, Sir Park
Raine, Sir Walter


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsden, E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bethel, A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harland, A.
Ropner, Major L.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton W.)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Blundell, F. N.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sanders, Sir Robert A


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Savery, S. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Shepperson, E. W.


Buchan, John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Bullock, Captain M.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Storry-Deans, R.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, A. Duff
Long, Major Eric
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cope, Major Sir William
Lougher, Lewis
Tinne, J. A.


Couper, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lumley, L. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
McLean, Major A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wells, S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Womersley, W. J.


Ellis, R. G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wragg, Herbert


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph



Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Finburgh, S.
Oakley, T.
Mr. Frederick Thomson and


Fraser, Captain Ian
Penny, Frederick George
Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayes, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, Ernest


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Day, Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Edge, Sir William
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Paling, W.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Thomas Henderson.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 63.

Division No. 203.]
AYES.
[3.1 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Albery, Irving James
Ganzoni, Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Preston, William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Radford, E. A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Goff, Sir Park
Raine, Sir Walter


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsden, E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bethel, A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harland, A.
Ropner, Major L.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Savery, S. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Buchan, John
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Bullock, Captain M.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Carver, Major W. H.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cayzer. Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Christie, J. A.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Storry, Deans, R.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, A. Duff
Long, Major Eric
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cope, Major Sir William
Lougher, Lewis
Tinne, J. A.


Couper, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lumley, L. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wells, S. R.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ellis, R. G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Monsell, Eyres Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wragg, Herbert


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.



Finburgh, S.
Oakley, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fraser, Captain Ian
Penny, Frederick George
Mr. Frederick Thomson and


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Bowyer.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayes, John Henry
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Thurtle, Ernest


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Townend, A. E.


Charleton, H. C
Kelly, W. T.
Varley, Frank B


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kennedy, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Wellock, Wilfred


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Day, Harry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Whiteley, W.


Dunnico, H.
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Edge, Sir William
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor, Waiter


Fenby, T. D.
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gibbins, Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Putts, John S.
Mr. Thomas Henderson and Mr. Wilfrid Paling.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power to make regulations in respect of removal of spirits from certain, premises or from ware-houses.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. DALTON: May we have some explanation? We have here reference to the Spirits Act, 1880.

Major ELLIOT: There is no difficulty. It is to deal with the movement of spirits for industrial purposes and to relax from some of the rigid rules made in the Act of 1880 to meet the necessities of modern industry. It does not affect the revenue or consumption.

Mr. HARDIE: Are we to understand that there has been a change in regard to the number of washings of crude spirit that take place? Some years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to see me in his room about it. What I want to ask is this: Since so much trouble has been taken in the past in regard to our distilleries—they take three days to measure up—is this Clause going to be such as to permit the distilleries to work continuously?

Major ELLIOT: It will not include the working of distilleries. It will include the conveyance of spirit.

Mr. HARDIE: If the hon. and gallant Member had listened he would have known that is what I said.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have listened to every word that the hon. Member has said.

Mr. HARDIE: I am glad you have also listened to me. Thank you very much. The question I have been dealing with is that of measurement. The reason three days are lost is because they have to wait until it is measured. Are we to understand by this Clause that it is going to be possible to have the line attached to that which contains liquid measured That is an important point. If we are to make sure there is no leakage in these tanks, then we must be sure we are measuring the whole of it. If this pipe line is connected in any way to the container that is measured by the officers, then there may be some chance of some escape without the Chancellor getting hiss money. I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer is always ready to listen to anything that is going to stop a leak or the possibility of one. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he cannot get over the engineering difficulty, that he might take it from the grain side and take his measurement from the grain used. I know the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is anxious to get home. He is anxious to make a reply, but the trains do not start till half-past six. On this Clause, it is necessary for someone with full knowledge of the subject to explain the point raised.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: There is a point on this Clause which deserves the attention of the Committee. It has to do with the structure of the Clause itself. As I understand it, it gives to the commissioners, by direction and other
means, power to vary the provisions of the Statute. Surely, if the Statute is to be varied, the conditions under which it should be varied and the modifications of the prohibitions now existing should be given in another Statute. I for one object to this machinery for varying specific Acts of Parliament by giving unregulated powers to commissioners, it is not the way legislation ought to proceed. It is open to the commissioners by regulation or otherwise to make the variations and then follow all sorts of liabilities if you do not obey a particular regulation. I shall always protest against this increasing tendency to vary Statutes by the uncontrolled

power of commissions. I hope that in future, if the Government wish to vary a Statute, they will alter it by specific language in another Statute and not leave it to a bureaucratic authority to make regulations without the approval of the Committee or of this House or persons concerned in the industry. I am sure hon. Members opposite will give a good deal of approval to this principle, for that sort of legislation is an invasion of the liberty of the subject.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 61.

Division No. 204.]
AYES.
[3.20 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Albery, Irving James
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Preston, William


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Goff, Sir Park
Radford, E. A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, Sir Walter


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ramsden, E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bethel, A.
Harland, A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Ropner, Major L.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Savery, S. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Buchan, John
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Bullock, Captain M.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Lamb, J. Q.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Christie, J. A.
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Long, Major Eric
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lougher, Lewis
Storry-Deans, R.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, A. Duff
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Couper, J. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Tinne, J. A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLean, Major A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dawson, Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wells, S. R.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ellis, R. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Womersley, W. J.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Finburgh, S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wragg, Herbert


Fraser, Captain Ian
Oakley, T.



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Penny, Frederick George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sir William Cope and Captain


Ganzoni, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Viscount Curzon.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Buchanan, G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bromfield, William
Charleton, H. C.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Compton, Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Townend, A. E.


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Varley, Frank B.


Edge, Sir William
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)'


Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)



Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddorsfield)
Sitch, Charles H.
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Benjamin Smith.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.



Kelly, W. T.

CLAUSE 10.—(Deposit in warehouse of beer for exportation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. DALTON: May I ask for examples of how this bears on the present state of the law?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The brewer at present has a right to deposit beer in a bonded warehouse for export without paying duty. Under this Clause, he receives a drawback of duty, which has already been charged, upon taking it out. Duty will be paid and given back instead of beer being put into store upon which duty has not been paid.

Mr. THURTLE: I regret that the explanation is quite inadequate. It does not deal with the various points raised by this Clause. I see that the Clause says that a dealer in beer will be entitled to add to the beer in the warehouse
finings; for classification or any other substance sanctioned by the Commissioners for the purposes of preparing the beer for exportation or use as ships' stores,
I do not profess to be an expert in beer. I would not claim that my knowledge of beer is more extensive than my knowledge of the Prayer Book. We ought to ask what is meant by those "finings." Authority has been given to dealers in beer to add some foreign substance to the beer. I want to know whether it is a harmful thing or not. It may be said that this is no concern of ours because the beer is beer for export or the use of ships' stores. I have always regarded myself as a friend of the seamen of this country. I do not want to see them have foisted upon them beer which may have been adulterated. I go further and say I am an Internationalist.
I do not view with equanimity the possibility of adulterated beer being sent abroad to be consumed by all sorts of nationals. I do ask the Financial Secretary, who, I am sure, has complete knowledge of the subject, to get up and let us have a little more knowledge before we pass the Clause.

Mr. BECKETT: When the Financial Secretary replies, could he also give us some idea of the effect of this proposal, if any, upon the revenue? Is it going to mean more money into the Exchequer or less?

Mr. SAMUEL: This country has a very lucrative and excellent business in the export of beer to His Majesty's Dominions beyond the sea, and, if this clarification would spoil the beer, we should not be able to sell it. It is to the interest of the brewers to see that the beer is wholesome and as pleasant as the customers like it. If it were of the nature of adulteration, the Minister of Health would not permit anything of the kind to take place. As to the question raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett), if I cannot say that the change will bring revenue into the Exchequer, I think I can say that it will prevent a loss which we think does take place from time to time under the old system.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I think the hon. Member said that the change from the previous state of the law was that under this Clause the duty will be paid on beer when it is put into bond and returned when it is taken out for export, whereas previously the beer was put into bond without the duty being paid.

Mr. SAMUEL: That is roughly right.

Mr. CRAWFURD: As I understand the equity of this business, the beer which
is put into bond for export does not morally owe any revenue to the Government at all, because it was from the start doomed to export. Let me take those rich varieties of stout, which I understand are included in the term beer, which are sent to India for the use of invalids and others. They are much heavier and richer than ordinary stout, I am told. When beer has from the first been foredoomed to export, has the Revenue any right to collect money in respect of it at all? The hon. Member will say that it is perfectly true that beer put into bond and later exported has the rebate paid afterwards, but the hon. Member may have had the use of that money for two, three, four, five, or six months. The Government will be drawing interest on the money deposited, and never from first to last will they have had the slightest claim on the brewer. We all know that the brewer is a person engaged in a struggling industry; hardly, in some circumstances, able to keep his head above water. Yet here is the hon. Member coming down and saying: "You who brew this stimulating beverage for the sake of the Britishers in the far corners of the earth, although you do not owe any tax to us, we will charge you a certain amount in case you do not export this beer in the end; and, even if you do, although we have no moral right to the money, we shall have had it for months and have drawn interest on it." When the drawback or rebate is eventually paid back to the person who stored the beer in bond, will there be added interest for the period the Government have had the money?

Mr. SAMUEL: No.

Mr. BECKETT: I do not want to detain the Committee at this time, because I do not think that a subject like this ought to be dealt with after hours, but I do think that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is very meagre in the information which he gives us. As the brewers are going to get considerable rating relief, I do not feel particularly inclined to worry if they have to pay a little more in taxation, but I do want to be quite sure that this process, which seems to be rather complicated, is not going to cost at least as much to carry through as the problematic interest and revenue which the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) is afraid that the struggling brewer will have to pay. If there be one thing that is dear to the hearts of the majority of Members of this House, it is to keep the red tape of State enterprise from interfering with the sacred rights of private enterprise, but, if we are to have State officials interfering, with forms to fill up in order to persuade the Government Department to grant a drawback, the Committee are running a serious risk of restricting enterprise, and preventing us from conquering those great foreign markets and sending beer to the Dominions to provide Englishmen oversea with their true national draughts. Unless they are going to get some little additional revenue it is not worth while creating a fresh department, with a good many fresh jobs and a number of fresh forms to fill in, in order to draw money from a section of the community one day and pay it back shortly afterwards.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 140; Noes. 61.

Division No. 205.]
AVES.
[3.39 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buchan, John
Dawson, Sir Philip


Albery, Irving James
Bullock, Captain M.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Carver, Major W. H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Ellis, R. G.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Christie, J. A.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bethel, A.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Finburgh, S.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cope, Major Sir William
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Blundell, F. N.
Couper, J. B.
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony


Boothby, R. J. G.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Goff, Sir Park


Briscoe, Richard George
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Hammersley, S. S.
Margesson, Captain D.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hannan, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Harland, A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Storry-Deans, R.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Oakley, T.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Tinne, J. A.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Preston, William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Radford, E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lamb, J. Q.
Raine, Sir Walter
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Ramsden, E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Loder, J. de V.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ls'y)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Long, Major Eric
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Wells, S. R.


Lougher, Lewis
Ropner, Major L.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lumley, L. R.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Womersley, W. J.


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wragg, Herbert


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.



McLean, Major A.
Savery, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macmillan, Captain H.
Shepperson, E. W.
Mr. Penny and Captain Viscount Curzon.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles, H.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, Ernest


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Whiteley, W.


Edge, Sir William
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Fenby, T. D.
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Hayes.

CLAUSE 11.—(Alteration of duties on licences for certain classes of mechanically-propelled vehicles.)

Mr. CHARLETON: I wish to move, in page 9, line 2, to leave out the word "and." I have a further Amendment on the paper, in page 9, line 2, after "5" to insert "and 6", and with your permission, Sir, I propose to argue the two together.

Mr. HAYDAY: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment before this one. I should like to know the position my Amendment is in.

The CHAIRMAN: After. We are discussing page 8, line 44.

HON. MEMBERS: No!.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry. I should have called Mr. Dalton.

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in page 8, line 44, after the word "shall" to insert the words "cease to".
I suppose you did not call me, because it is a direct negative, but I gather that you rule that my Amendment is in order. Perhaps I may make briefly a few observations oil the line of this Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) is not in order, because it is not followed by a Schedule.

Mr. HAYDAY: I handed it in to-day.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid in the circumstances that I cannot select it.

Mr. DALTON: We are dealing with a new scheme for motor vehicles. It was intended in the Budget as a partial set-off for the new Petrol Duty. The Committee will probably remember from the Budget speech the proposal which this Clause embodies. It proposes to make certain reductions in the scales for vehicles, and my submission is that in view of the very heavy burden caused by the new Petrol Duty the reductions proposed are not sufficient to make up in a reasonable measure to the owners of hackney vehicles or goods vehicles, as the case may be, the extra burden they may carry. It has been argued in previous Debates on Finance Bills that the increased duty will act as an increased cost in the distribution of goods, and therefore to some extent defeat the purpose of the Government in reducing the costs of production. For that reason the Amendment I am moving will have the effect of wiping out these duties altogether. The Amendment would have the effect, particularly as regards goods vehicles, of reducing the cost of distribution and consequently bring about a cheapening of the costs including the cost of distribution of goods produced in this country. If the Government are really aiming, as they tell us in other parts of the financial scheme, to stimulate industry, they should have no hesitation in accepting this Amendment.

Mr. HAYDAY: May I submit a point dealing with the question of taxation of these vehicles? I would like the Minister favourably to consider the point of increasing the weight of the motor cycles. At present they have a maximum weight of 200 lbs. and a tax of 30s. Motor cycle manufacturers have recently been concerned, because of their export trade and their home trade, to give a reliable motor cycle. With the lamp and all fittings attached it slightly exceeds 200 lbs. in weight, and that brings with it another 30s. tax. The Raleigh works situated at Nottingham find that it is a serious handicap. I would ask the Minister whether he would favourably consider increasing the weight from 200 lbs. to 225 lbs.? It is a small concession, but it means a good deal of difference in the reliability and the desire manufacturers have in placing on the market a machine that will bring increased trade to them without unduly
straining the taxable limit of the person who purchases the machine. I hope the Minister will take it into consideration and see whether he cannot raise the limit from 200 lbs. to 225 lbs. before it goes from the 30s. tax to the £3 tax.

Mr. MACKINDER: I would like to help forward that argument. I think the Minister will agree that so far as the Petrol Duty and horse-power tax are concerned, there is no person in the country who pays as much tax for the use of the roads as the motor cyclist. I have been a motor cyclist for a number of years. I think the Minister would agree that 200 to 300 motor cycles put on the road would not do as much harm as one motor lorry. I know what I am speaking about. They pay up to £1,000 in taxes, and on top of that they have to pay the new Petrol Duty. The whole position is absolutely absurd. I know that young men in the country cannot afford high-power cars, and they get low-power motor cycles, and I know the difficulties in supplying a motor cycle of the weight which is adequate to the work it has to do and within the weight mentioned by my hon. Friend.
The least the Minister might do is to meet the point submitted. It is a very small point, and it would not be too much, especially in view of the increased charge that these young men have to pay in the way of the Petrol Duty. In the first place, I think the taxation is too high, and with the added Petrol Duty, it will take a lot away from these men, who cannot offord to pay for high-power machines. I think the Minister of Transport might consider it.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The point about motor cycles would be more appropriately raised on the Schedule, and hon. Members who have raised it would do well to put down an Amendment to the Schedule, so that it could be dealt with in its proper place. As you have allowed hon. Members to raise the point, may I say one sentence in answer? I am afraid that I cannot give any concessions in this matter. I do not consider that motor cyclists at the present moment are unduly and highly taxed. A motor cycle under 200 lbs. pays 30s. and over 200 lbs. £3. Considering the amount of money spent on our roads out of rates and out
of the Road Fund, and what they get for 30s. and £3, I do not think that the tax is too high. If I had to raise the limit to 220 lbs., some hon. Members would say: "220 lbs. is just the dividing line; make it 230." The original 200 lbs. limit was put on what is defined as a light cycle, and I cannot see my way to change from that, though I do suggest that the appropriate time is on the Schedule in the Bill and not on the Clause.

Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman permit me for one moment. It is because the Amendment that I was about to submit is out of order that I wanted to ask the Minister whether he would consider it, and I would not press it at this stage. I would ask him if he would be prepared to receive a deputation on the matter, because I think he will see that works like the Raleigh with a great export trade would like to make a type slightly over 200 lbs. in weight for export, and in order to meet the financial resources of their purchasers at home. Now if by chance it is 1 lb. over, it immediately carries another 30s. That rather upsets their market, and it has a tendency to injure the reputation of firms well known for the reliable machines they produce. Just that few pounds extra in weight makes a lot of difference. If the right hon. Gentleman would receive some representation and if some slight concession could be made, we would be very thankful.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am only too pleased to see the hon. Member or any of his friends and to receive a deputation if he will bring one. It is my duty and pleasure to do so. I am sure that I shall receive much useful information if he will come and see me. As to the Amendment before the Committee, I cannot conceive it being put forward for any other reason than as a peg on which to talk about something else. It simply means that there would be no motor vehicle tax at all. The local authority gets very little money for the upkeep of the roads and the numerous road widenings and road reconstructions. The Amendment cannot possibly be accepted by the Government, or there would be no motor vehicle tax for the year 1928–29.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will give consideration to the point before the Report stage of the Bill. There is a good deal of substance in what my hon. Friend says about motor cycle manufacturers in relation to this taxation of machines at a weight of 200 lbs. In recent years there have been considerable improvements in machines, and there are a good many so-called gadgets which very frequently bring the machine beyond the limit of weight on which tax is paid. While I am very reluctant to suggest anything to reduce the revenue, there is a good deal in what has been advanced from the other side of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman would be doing a great service to an important industry in this country ill he could in some way meet the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I think he would find it would be a considerable stimulus to the motor cycle industry if he could increase the weight, not perhaps 25 lbs. but 20 lbs., or a little margin above the present weight.

Mr. OLIVER: There is just a point I wish to raise, and on which I should like guidance. It refers to invalid carriages. In a part of my constituency, there are four injured miners who have carriers with a small engine attached. They have to pay 5s. for the use of this engine and 5s. for a driving licence. Ten shillings is not very much I confess, but men who have a pension of 12s. 6d. up to 24s. are not in a position to pay even 10s. a year. I want to ask the Minister of Transport or the Chancellor of the Exchequer if these men cannot be freed of this imposition?

The CHAIRMAN: I am unwilling to rule out of order suggestions for rebates, but, as a matter of fact, the question before the House is the total abolition of the tax, and I think details of this sort would really be better discussed on the Schedule.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I do not see much objection to a reduction on the motor cycle, but all along the line there is a demand for the increase of weight. In the lorry and steam-lorry markets, there are always representations made to get heavier and heavier vehicles. From the point of view of road upkeep, it becomes a serious matter.

Captain FRASER: Will the Minister of Transport refuse any concession whatever to motor cyclists unless they can abate the noise they make?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 139.

Division No. 206.]
AYES.
[4.7 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, Watt)
Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hint, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, Ernest


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jonss, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Whiteley, W.


Edge, Sir William
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Fenby, T. D.
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Glimour, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Albery, Irving James
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Preston, William


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Goff, Sir Park
Radford, E. A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, Sir Walter


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ramsden, E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bethel, A.
Harland, A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ropner, Major L.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Blundell, F. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hilton, Cecil
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Savery, S. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Shepperson, E. W.


Buchan, John
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Bullock, Captain M.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Loder, J. de V.
Storry-Deans, R.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Long, Major Eric
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lougher, Lewis
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cooper, A. Duff
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cope, Major Sir William
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tinne, J. A.


Couper, J. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Daikeith, Earl of
McLean, Major A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain D.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Williams, Com. G. (Devon, Torquay)


Ellis, R. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Womersley, W. J.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Falie, Sir Bertram G.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wragg, Herbert


Finburgh, S.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Fraser, Captain Ian
Oakley, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Penny, Frederick George
Captain Viscount Curzon and


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Bowyer.


Ganzoni, Sir John.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Mr. CHARLETON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 2, to leave out the word "and."
As I mentioned when you called me just now, I propose, with your permission, Sir, to discuss this and my second Amendment—after "5" to insert "and 6"—together. I am supported by some hon. Friends opposite, notably one who presented a monster petition some time ago, largely, I have no doubt, signed by hon. Members opposite. We were all, of course, disappointed at the result. The petition was asking for a reduction in the horse-power tax and for the tax to be put on petrol. The Chancellor of the Exchequer obligingly put the tax on petrol but did not reduce the Motor Tax. This Amendment of mine refers to the Schedules and will give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity to complete the good work. By so doing, he will bring down on his head the blessings of thousands of motorists—many of whom I see smiling opposite—who signed that monster petition. I would suggest that the majority of the people who signed the petition were supporters of the Government. That seems to me a strong argument why he should meet me on this. I would also suggest to the Minister of Transport that this Amendment will not mean a loss to the Government. If he allows these few words to be inserted they will allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to complete the good work. If you bring down the tax, as my further Amendment would provide for, then people who are on the margin of being able to afford a motor would come over the line and be able to run a motor, with the result that there would be a fillip to British industry which all of us greatly want. With the tax on motors they would most likely be British motors. These motorists would use more petrol and there would be the 4¼d. on petrol which we are all paying. That would also go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe all this is a very desirable thing to do. By bringing down this tax we should bring more people into the sunlight. I can testify as one running about in the air and sunshine all my life to the benefit of it. I felt the difference when I had to live in this artificial atmosphere. I am sure there are many sickly clerks and other people employed in offices and vast warehouses who would be
healthier We would get back to the class of Al men who won Agincourt and Cressy and other battles long ago. This Amendment would have the support of all motorists. If the right hon. Gentle-man accepts it it would in some measure compensate motorists for what they have been paying on petrol.

Sir EDWARD ILIFFE: I put my name down to this Amendment to enable an alteration to be made subsequently to the Schedule. The effective words are:
In the case of any vehicle the engine of which was constructed not less than five years before the date of licence, the duty shall be fifty per cent. of the duty otherwise charged under this paragraph.
I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant this concession. I think everyone will agree that the Chanceller of the Exchequer has tested the motoring community pretty highly in regard both to petrol and licence duty. They have responded with considerable fortitude. The rebate would not be a very costly one and this alteration would benefit the user and the industry very considerably. Any Members who have endeavoured to sell their old cars will understand how difficult it is at the present time, for one is not selling an old car, one is selling a liability. One is selling a liability to pay a very considerable duty especially in the case of higher powered cars. I myself have a car which is 40 horsepower—it costs me £40 a year. I have been trying to sell it. I find I cannot get more for it than £50. Anyone buying it would be buying a liability. If a rebate is made in cases like that, many motorists will keep a car as a second string, and many others who cannot sell cars to-day will be able to sell them and purchase new cars. Therefore it will benefit both the motorists themselves and the industry. I hope the Minister will give this point careful consideration, and, even if he cannot give us this rebate now, I hope he will be able to say that he will consider it carefully for next year.

Colonel ASHLEY: The six names put down to this Amendment are a curious, combination of forces. The first three are hon. Members who sit on the Opposition side of the House, and the other three are hon. Members who sit on this
side of the House. I could not make out why they combined forces, but now I see that it is only in order to get a first or preliminary step in the Bill, and then they diverge on different elements when they get to the Schedule. As to the hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton), he talked about motoring and other things, but he did not come to close grips with what his Amendment really means to the Schedule. It means the halving of the horse-power tax, which means a loss to the revenue of £5,750,000 in a full year. If this Amendment were passed and the Road Fund lost a quarter of its income, it would be perfectly impossible for me to continue the grants to the local authorities to help the rates at anything like the scale I am doing now. Much reconstruction would have to be put aside and the liabilities of the Fund would be so great that it could not meet them. I am quite sure the hon. Member himself does not seriously mean an Amendment to be passed which would entail a loss in a full year of £5,750,000. As regards the serious Amendment of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir E. Iliffe), that is a matter which has not been without consideration by the Government for this year. Strictly speaking, of course, from the roads point of view, there is nothing in it, because the old car does just as much damage to the roads as a new car. On the other hand, I do see his point. It is the considered opinion of many manufacturers and dealers that, if a reduction be given to cars over a certain number of years old, it would stimulate sales, would clear these cars out of the garages and shops where they are now kept, would therefore possibly increase the number of cars on the roads—though, by the same token, the profit from the extra petrol consumed would not go into the Road Fund but into the Exchequer—and would therefore enable more new cars to be built and to be purchased by the public. There is, of course, something to be said on the other side, but I do not see any advantage at this late hour in going into the merits of the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, has authorised me to say that we will go into the whole matter before next year's Budget, sympathetically. We do not say that we can do it, but we will consider it sympathetically and, if possible, we will do something
in the direction which the hon. Member desires. With regard to the Schedule, the idea underlying the new Schedule which we have been discussing is to mitigate in some degree the burden which has been placed on certain sections of the community by the 4d. tax on petrol. It seems to me that those who are most hit are the taxi-cabs and what are called the heavies—the chars-a-banc, omnibuses and heavy goods vehicles—and, therefore, when we come to the Schedules, I hope to show that, with the comparatively limited resources at our disposal, we have allocated the money to reducing the tax on taxi-cabs, omnibuses and chars-a-banc which are most hard hit by the Petrol Tax because they consume most petrol.

Mr. B. SMITH: It is hardly relevant for the Minister to say that he does not care to go into this because of the hour. When the original Act was brought in, all cars of a certain age—I think the year was 1913—were exempted from half the tax. There are some of those cars still running.

Colonel ASHLEY: That was not on the ground of age; it was on the ground of design.

Mr. SMITH: It was on the grounds of design and age. The fact remains that there was an exemption of 50 per cent.

Colonel ASHLEY: 25 per cent.

Mr. SMITH: An exemption of 25 per cent. of the tax on all cars manufactured in 1913 and before. Now there are old cars on the road and new designs have taken their place, leaving them heavily taxed by virtue of the horsepower, and we are asking that there should be some easement of taxation on that kind of vehicle. Hon. Members opposite continually tell us that they want to give some push to business. Obviously, if these cars were reduced in tax, the Revenue would benefit from a higher consumption of petrol, because these cars were not only expensive from the horsepower point of view, but they were heavy consumers of petrol. I ask the Minister not to promise us something for next year. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would sympathetically consider the question of the horsepower tax. He has not considered it, but has added to it a 4d. petrol tax. The Minister says that the hardest hit people are
the taxicabs, and that some concession is made of £3 over the present £15.

Colonel ASHLEY: £5.

Mr. SMITH: Yes, that is right. For taxicabs it is £5, but that reduction applies primarily to London. In the provinces they were paying £12 up to a year ago, and the difference therefore is only £2 in their case. With regard to the London taxicab, had there been any cohesion between the various Departments they would have seen that some equity prevailed in the incidence of this taxation. The Home Secretary has already reduced the fares. They have now added a 4d. tax on petrol, which is practically putting the industry out of existence. Many of the cabs are already old, and, if the Minister could grant the concession to the old cabs, it would in some measure recoup them for their losses. What has happened to the Road Fund? The Minister knows perfectly well that the Road Fund, as such, other than for maintenance, is practically nonexistent. I say definitely that we in London on the London Traffic Advisory Committee have £400,000 a year allocated from the Exchequer to do the whole work of London. Is that a fair recognition? We are to be limited in future, I think, to a sum of £150,000, and for the Minister to tell us that it will injure the Road Fund by granting this concession is to mislead the Committee. I will ask the Minister very seriously not to promise us something in the near future. The Government have to face another election shortly, and we hope they will not be returned in the strength they are now—in fact, you will not be the Government. But we would rather you made your bed right by removing many of the anomalies that at present exist.

Mr. HANNON: I propose to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment that stands in my name—in page 9, line 3, at the end, to insert the words
and as if the rates of duties specified in paragraphs 1, 3, 5, and 6 of the said schedules other than rates less than one pound had been reduced by one-half in the case of a vehicle whereof the engine was constructed at least five years before the date of the issue of the licence.
But, perhaps, I may be permitted to make one or two observations on the speech of the Minister. To wait until next year will not do very much for
motor manufacturers and agents who have large numbers of cars on hand that can only be disposed of by exchange of second-hand cars. Practically 80 per cent. of the sales effected in cars are effected in exchange for second-hand cars.

Mr. MACKINDER: Are we to understand that the hon. Member is now speaking to the Amendment he is is asking leave to withdraw?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member's Amendment to which he refers is one which would have been covered by one of these two Amendments taken together, and therefore he is in order in discussing it on this Amendment.

Mr. HANNON: I said that I would ask leave presently to withdraw that Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport received a very influential deputation the other day from the whole of the motor trade of the country, and they made very clear and definite representations on the difficult position in which the industry found itself in the disposal of these second-hand cars. Neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Minister gave them very much encouragement, but on occasions of that kind the Minister's good nature and kindly consideration is always in inverse ratio to the practical concessions they make. This industry is very seriously handicapped, because of the difficulty of selling a large car with a heavy tax attached to it. Since the deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, very exhaustive inquiries were made as to the extent second-hand cars were in stock, and after very careful examination the part of all sections of the motor trade, the loss to the revenue worked out at something like £379,000 on the total number of 50,000 cars in stock. I am very sorry my right hon. Friend has not seen his way to give us more encouragement.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I desire to speak as shortly as possible. The Members of the Government and their supporters who are at the moment in a state of unconsciousness, make it rather a reflection on the way in which the affairs of this House ire being conducted on a very
important matter. I should like, however, to take this opportunity of expressing my own very great gratification on hearing the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) for the first occasion make a speech calculated to help British trade. I think his contribution to this Debate has been most valuable. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir E. Iliffe), in his appeal, said he hoped for a graceful gesture from the right hon. Gentleman. Any gesture from the right hon. Gentleman will be graceful, but I will also remind him of what the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) has said, that something done this year is better than something promised next year. Four years ago, in response to a Clause which I moved on the same lines as the present Schedule, the then representative of the Ministry of Transport made the same kind of promise that sympathetic consideration would be given by the Government—the same Government.
We have all listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and I venture to say that everything he has said has been a criticism of his own action, or rather inaction

two or three years ago. We warned him at the time that those who carried purses should be very careful about the company they keep. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech this morning could be answered by saying that if he had only been a proper guardian of the fund of which he was trustee there would have been plenty of money. After three or four years consistently hammering the Transport Ministry and the Government, in the last year of office all they propose to do is to put it off for one year. It is disappointing that this proposal, which is universally wanted and asked for by the motor trade, and which everyone in the motor trade says will definitely do more for that trade than any other Measure can possibly do, cannot be accepted, presumably because the right hon. Gentleman cannot spare the £5,750,000 that it will cost. More than £5,750,000 has been taken by his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he had defended that money, he would have been in a better position.

Question put, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 59.

Division No. 207.]
AYES.
[4.45 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Albery, Irving James
Ellis, R. G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Finburgh, S.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Captain D.


Bethel, A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Ganzoni, Sir John.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Blundell, F. N.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Goff, Sir Park
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hammersley, S. S.
Oakley, T.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George


Bullock, Captain M.
Harland, A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Carver, Major W. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Preston, William


Christie, J. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Radford, E. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Raine, Sir Walter


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hilton, Cecil
Ramsden, E.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Cope, Major Sir William
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Couper, J. B.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Ropner, Major L.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lamb, J. Q.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, putney)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Daikeith, Earl of
Loder, J. de V.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Long, Major Eric
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lougher, Lewis
Savery, S. S.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shepperson, E. W.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Wood, E. (Chester, staly'b'ge & Hyde)


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wragg, Herbert


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Watts, Sir Thomas



Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wells, S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor Warrender.


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)



Titchfield, Major the Marquess of




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, Ernest


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Crawford, H. E.
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Day, Harry
Malone, C. L'Estrange, (N'thampton)
Whiteley, W.


Dunnico, H.
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Fenby, T. D.
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, at the end, to insert the words
and as if at the end of sub-section (4) thereof there were inserted the following: 'or for the removal of refuse or the cleansing, watering, or repairing of streets'.
This is a matter which has been raised before on behalf of the municipalities.

Colonel ASHLEY: It is said that the continual dripping of water will wear away a stone, but I cannot admit that the continual presentation of the arguments in favour of this Amendment makes the arguments better. Candidly, I do not think the hon. Gentleman expects me to accept this Amendment. We have in former years, for reasons, be they good or bad, exempted fire engines and ambulances to some extent from taxation on the ground that they use the roads very little, and now the hon. Member comes along and says "include all scavenger service and municipal carts." I do not see why they should be exempted if they use the roads as much as similar vehicles employed by contractors. It would be very unfair, if they did the same work, that the contractor should have to pay the tax and not the municipality. Therefore, I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The reply is scarcely a full reply. When the Minister
compares the contractor with the municipality, he forgets that the contractor may be working in the area of one municipality to-day and in another area tomorrow, while municipal vehicles of this description operate entirely in the area of the one municipality and use only the roads of that municipality. It seems to me a logical argument that they should not be called upon to pay the same tax as ordinary vehicles, since no provision is forthcoming from the Minister of Transport to help to maintain the roads within the area of the municipality in which these vehicles are employed.

Colonel ASHLEY: If they are first or second-claims roads, they are helped substantially.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that there are many districts where the contribution is infinitesimal, and the vehicles, travelling as they do in all kinds of back streets, and so forth, are seldom on first-or second-class roads. It seems grossly unfair that, if the vehicles are used exclusively for sanitary purposes within the area, they should be called upon to pay the same taxation. They have no benefit from the Road Fund. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to encourage the use of these vehicles, and, by doing so, encourage cleanliness to a far greater extent
than at present. A small contribution of this kind would be thankfully received, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought not to resist this Amendment merely because he happens to have resisted it in years gone by. Local authorities have approached him before, but the reply has always been the question of money. That ought not to bar the way. Having given the concession to the fire engines and the ambulances, he might extend it to these vehicles within the area of the local authorities. It would be a small loss to the revenue, but a large gain to the municipalities.

Mr. PALING: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the dropping

of water could wear away a stone. I suppose he is the stone. If the argument put up by him is the best he can do, I do not think that it is a very good one. He referred to the municipalities and the contractors, but he forgot that a contractor does not do the job for the sake of cleaning the road. He does it, first, for profit. If he did not get any profit, he would not do it. The municipality has to do it, profit or no profit. I think it is strictly logical to grant relief in the case of these particular vehicles that keep the roads in a fit condition for other users.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 134.

Division No. 208.]
AYES.
[5.0 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, Ernest


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T
Varley, Frank B.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.


Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hilton, Cecil


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dawson, Sir Phillip
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bethel, A.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorkt, W. R., Skipton)
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Ellis, R. G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Blundell, F. N.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lamb, J. Q.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft




Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Loder, J. de V. Long, Major Eric


Briscoe, Richard George
Finburgh, S.
Lougher, Lewis


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Bullock, Captain M.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lumley, L. R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Christie, J. A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major A.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
MacMillan, Captain H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hammersley, S. S.
Margesson, Capt. D.


Cope, Major Sir William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Couper, J. B.
Harland, A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Head lam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Oakley, T.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Penny, Frederick George
Savery, S. S.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Preston, William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Womersley, W. J.


Raine, Sir Walter
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wragg, Herbert


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor Warrender.


Ropner, Major L.
Tinne, J. A.



Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is there not another Amendment on the 'Paper—in page 9, line 3, at the end, to add the words:
and as if the rates of duties specified in paragraphs 1, 3, 5, and 6 of the said schedules other than rates less than one pound had been reduced by one-half in the case of a vehicle whereof the engine was constructed at least five years before the date of the issue of the licence

Colonel ASHLEY: It was covered by the Amendment relating to five years.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is not identical, but it is so similar to the one which has already been negatived that I do not propose to select it.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would have thought that the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) would have been the last to run away from the Amendment standing on the Paper in connection with this Clause.

Mr. HANNON: The Chairman has just ruled that my Amendment was covered by a preceding one.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member for Moseley was not very anxious. It seemed to me a very great pity that the Minister of Transport did not regard this matter with more sympathy. I have heard some expressions of feeling by the trade in the last few months. It is be-

coming exceedingly difficult for the trade, because of the increasing glut of second hand cans. What we wanted to do was to try to make it easier for people to undertake the maintenance of cars and so make room for the sale of new cars. It seems to me that the Minister of Transport has not been a very great aid to the motor industry in this matter. First he Jailed to stand up to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he ought to do as the Minister of Transport, when the Road Fund has been repeatedly raided. Then when the motorists want futher help by making it easier to deal with second hand cars he is quite content to go on asking them for what are, in the circumstances, extortionate duties to be levied on cars of this kind. I do not think that that is the line that the Minister of Transport ought to take. He ought to see that the funds which are subscribed by the owners of vehicles are used for the purpose for which they are subscribed, and he ought to see that the people who are able to take up second hand cars should have the advantage of reduced terms so far as the duty is concerned. I regret that it is not possible to state the case as fully as I should like, because of the unfortunate hour at which we are forced to discuss it. I desire to register my protest at the manner in which the matter has been dealt with.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 59.

Division No. 209.]
AYES.
[5.12 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bethel, A.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Bowyer, Capt G. E. W.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Briscoe, Richard George


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Blundell, F. N.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Bullock, Captain M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hilton, Cecil
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Christie, J. A.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Ropner, Major L.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hudson, R. S. (Cmuberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cooper, A. Duff
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cope, Major Sir William
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Couper, J. B.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Savery, S. S.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Loder, J. de V.
Shepperson, E. W.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Long, Major Eric
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lougher, Lewis
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Ellis, R. G.
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tinne, J. A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Finburgh, S.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gadie, Lieut.-col. Anthony
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wells, S. R.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Goff, Sir Park
Oakley, T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Frederick George
Womersley, W. J.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wragg, Herbert


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Power, Sir John Cecil



Harland, A.
Preston, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harrison, G. J. C.
Radford, E. A.
Captain Margesson and Major the


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Raine, Sir Walter
Marquess of Titchfield.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, Ernest


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'tharnpton)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Paling and Mr. Whiteley.


Hardie, George D.
Purcell, A. A.

CLAUSE 12.—(Licence duty on articulated motor vehicles.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir H. SLESSER: On this Clause, may we have some explanation, particularly in regard to the phrase "partial super-imposition." It seems a very extraordinary phrase, and I should like to have some explanation. If His Majesty's Judges were called upon to interpret "partial super-imposition," they would
find it anything but easy. The Government should explain what it means.

Colonel ASHLEY: I confess that I have a higher opinion of the intelligence of His Majesty's Judges than the right hon. Gentleman seems to have. "Partial super-imposition" is quite clear. It is what is partially placed on top of the other. The explanation is very simple. In the Finance Act of 1923 the higher rate of duty which could be levied on goods vehicles which were taxed on
weight was placed on vehicles which had six wheels, four wheels in the tractor and two wheels in the trailer. Unfortunately, in the Act it was stated that six-wheel vehicles should be taxed at that higher rate. Since then, mechanical engineers have devised eight-wheel vehicles, and this Clause is to make the eight-wheel or ten-wheel pay the higher tax, because that vehicle is going to do the most damage to the roads.

Sir H. SLESSER: If the trailer is attached by super-imposition it should not be described as partial.

Colonel ASHLEY: Then it would not be a trailer.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Penny and Mr. Frederick Thomson were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, the CHAIRMAN declared that the "Ayes" had it.

CLAUSE 13.—(Income tax and Super-tax, 1928–29.)

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be postponed."
It may be more convenient for the Committee if I move to postpone this Clause—it raises a rather complex question—until a later period in the discussion. It follows the precedent of last year. More over, there is a new Clause which deals with the same question as is raised. It will be convenient to bring these two discussions into relation as far as possible with each other, which no doubt can be achieved some time this afternoon or in the early part of to-morrow morning. Therefore, I move to postpone the Clause in order that it may be taken after Clause 28.

Mr. DALTON: I see no ground what-ever for postponing the consideration of this Clause. By studying the Paper certain hon. Members on the other side who should be here are not in their places in order to take part in the discussion of the Finance Bill. They prefer to be in their beds. That is no reason why the discussion should not be taken. I suspect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the result of pressure exercised through the Conservative Press
and through sections on his own side of the House, is proposing to make certain concessions to the clamour of Super-tax payers, asserting that they have been charged more than is reasonable. My hon. Friends are quite prepared to discuss the Clause now. We have not asked to report Progress. This is a matter of greater importance than many of the things on which a good deal of time has been spent during all these hours. We shall oppose the proposal to postpone the Clause.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The right hon. Gentleman has not been sitting here through all the night, but we have been. There has been nothing in the shape of obstruction all through, and now, just because one or two of the right hon. Gentleman's friends are absent, he asks us to postpone the Clause until a later date.

Mr. GILLETT: I wish to voice my opposition to this proposal, because it seems to me to a certain extent that the Chancellor wishes to postpone this Clause for the convenience of some of his friends. There is another Clause coming on which is more important and of much more interest. I refer to Clause 18, which excites a great deal of interest in quarters not confined to these benches. I think it a great misfortune that a Clause which will lay down certain principles dealing with the Sinking Fund should be taken at this hour in the morning. If the Chancellor proposed to postpone that as well as the other there would be something in it, but to take this one and leave Clause 18 is an extraordinary proceeding, when relatively speaking the Clause which he wishes to postpone is trivial compared with Clause 18.

Mr. MACLEAN: I want to lodge my protest against the manner in which the Chancellor is bringing forward this proposal that we should leave this Clause out until a later period. This Committee is evidently looked upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as merely a convenience to suit himself and his friends. We have been asked to wait here all through the night—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. Oh, yes. We have been asked to wait all through the night because the Government have moved the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule. [HON.
MEMBERS: "No!"] It has been exempted business for the rest of us, but not for the Chancellor and his friends. The Chancellor and his friends have not been here all through the evening. They have gone home to bed, and now he wants us to postpone this Clause until they can be here. What guarantee can he give that his friends will be here at the time he is going to bring forward this Clause? Has he any guarantee? It seems to me that it is purely for the convenience of the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) or one or two of his friends. When we have Amendments down for discussion, the Committee should not await their convenience but should go ahead with the business. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to put forward some sounder reason than the one he has given why we should delay the matter, to adjourn the whole question. Until the three members of the Committee who are absent come from their beds to discuss it, is not sufficient. Really, we are going to have three Mussolinis in the House instead of one. So far as we are concerned, we are prepared to go on with it. Why cannot the Chancellor? In the earlier stages of this Debate the Chancellor, in the brilliant way in which he met all objection, and with the energy he displayed, looked as if he was going through with the whole Bill to-day. Now he wants to leave it over to a later period. Is he tired out? If he is, let us all go home. If he is exhausted, we will take pity, and we will all go home together. We shall all come back to-morrow and have a fresh start. We will come back in a fresh state, and the right hon. Gentleman will be able to go forward, and with high dialectical skill he will be able to meet the objections put forward from all parts of the Committee, and dispose of the arguments. I think it is not a question of leaving over this Clause and of allowing the Chancellor to go away, but of postponing the rest of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member now appears to be arguing in favour of reporting Progress. The Motion before the Committee is to postpone the Clause.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Motion is to postpone this particular Clause. I understand
that it is to postpone discussion on this Clause. I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show some more cogent reason why the Clause should be postponed, and why other Clauses should not be postponed along with it. Why not take the Bill in its proper sequence, Clause by Clause, and not jump over a Clause and leave it for another day. That is going over the Bill in piece-meal fashion. I am quite certain that, if the Chancellor only looks at the benches behind, he will see that his own party are quite anxious to go ahead with the Bill. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has really any desire to discuss the matter properly, we can argue the postponement of this Clause for a few minutes longer, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, who knows where the three hon. Members are residing, or reclining, or slumbering, can send for them as he does when there is a speedy Division, bringing Members from all round Westminster to take part in the Division. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury can send for these three Members and get them to come along. We will keep the Debate going. We will keep the Committee going until they come along. We will oblige the Government and meet their convenience. We can go on for a long time yet. Between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer it will be quite possible to dig out from their dug out the three Members in whose interests we are supposed to postpone the discussion of this Clause. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will really consider that it is possible for this Debate to continue. Clause 13, after all, at this early hour will not be considered an unlucky Clause for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He might get it and he might not. It might be an unlucky Clause. At any rate, he might chance it and risk getting it at this time in the morning. I hope the Chancellor will reconsider the matter.

Mr. PALING: The right hon. Gentleman has some audacity, and it needs some audacity to make such a Motion after an all-night sitting. The Opposition have been here arguing the business from beginning to end and no Members of the Tory Benches have taken part in the Debate except the Minister and his colleague. The right hon. Gentleman himself, I admit, had a bad time at the
beginning of the day, but he has had time to recover since then. He has had a few hours sleep, and now he comes and asks us to leave this Clause and take some other up. The Tory party or someone behind thinks they have got so many Members that they can carry on in shifts. They have got the wrong men on the wrong shifts. They have got day men on night shifts. That is why the right hon. Gentleman is asking for this postponement. I want to ask him: Does he think it fair because he has got them on the wrong turn and the right Members do not happen to be here, that people, who have sat here all night from a quarter to three in the afternoon until a quarter to six in the morning doing Parliamentary business, should be asked to go on to another Clause, to suit the convenience of the Tory party? Surely the honourable thing, if the hon. Members cannot go on with the business they have set down, is to give it up and let us all go home. I wondered when the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up whether there was any reason for it. He has been jibed pretty often for not knowing much about some of the things which we have been discussing. We have asked for information and have not got it. But, apparently, it is because the wrong people are on the shift. We have discussed things in their proper sequence all night, and there is no reason why we should depart from that order.

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I said a little time ago, the Committee would be quite wrong in assuming that the Clause is being postponed on account of the absence of the three Members. As a matter of fact, it deals with a matter that was dealt with in the small hours of the morning before, and many firms and authorities complained that the matter had been settled at a time when they thought it could not be appreciated and understood by many Members. It was in view of that, that I was anxious that this year, when the same points came up, that they should be discussed at a time when they could be discussed properly and the information given with regard to those factors. It is that reason and not for any question of the convenience of any particular Member that we have proposed the postponement of this Clause, to which proposal I must respectfully adhere.

Mr. PALING: Is not that an argument for abolishing night sittings?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am afraid the second appeal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was no more convincing than the first. We are being seriously asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer no think that it is a mere coincidence that three of his own supporters should have their names down to an Amendment. Then we are told seriously that it is not for their convenience that we should postpone this particular Clause. It was the Chancellor, in one of his historical speeches before he joined the party to which he now belongs, who told us that the Tory party was one of great vested interests. It is of interest to know that among the three Members who have their names down in connection with this particular Clause is the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who evidently is not physically able to be here at this time in the morning. If it had been a question of silver coinage or bad coinage, on which we have often heard him, he would probably have been here. I feel sure this particular Clause has something historical about it. It caused some trouble 12 months ago. Then, there is the Member for the City (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), who, I understand, represents the great financial interests, and the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer). I think Yarmouth is famous for bloaters, and this if apparently a red herring drawn across our track. Surely, when Members on this side of the Committee have attended to their work since 10 o'clock yesterday morning, they should not be asked to postpone this particular Clause. Members on this side, I am sure, are prepared to go on with the business. I feel sure that if the Chancellor made an appeal to the Attorney-General he would wake up.

Sir THOMAS WATTS: Does the hon. Member propose to go on with the Clause with only four Members of the Liberal party present?

Mr. WESTWOOD: Never in my long experience in public life have I used a word of slander of the dead. I have not the slightest intention of being slanderous of the dead at this time of the morning. It may be possible that the Liberal party have died only from
the feet upwards, but the Tory party has been dead for a long time from the head downwards. It is because we have remained mentally and physically alert that we are entitled to a little more courtesy and fair treatment from the Chancellor of the Exchequer than he is seeking to give us at the present time. We are all anxious to hear the Chancellor, and we could get our ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer to come back and give him just the same thrashing as we enjoyed yesterday.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the Clauses are taken in their proper order the Clause which will be taken now is this Income Tax Clause. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has his way and we postpone this Clause regarding the Income Tax, we proceed to deal with these Clauses about the Sinking Fund, Clauses 18 and 19. They are Clauses of great importance, altering the whole future of the financial relations of this country—doing away with rules of finance which have existed for a long time and substituting some of the meritricious proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to put in their places. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to the conclusion that this is the wrong time to discuss Income Tax proposals, it is a wrong time to discuss these Clauses.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am bound to say, on behalf of the Government, that we have not been kindly or very well treated in view of the fact that I did not press the House to sit at all late last night, feeling something of an assurance that business would not be protracted. Obviously, had we known that discussion on these comparatively small matters would have lasted so long, we should have made considerable inroads on last night. But, if it would have the effect of enabling us to terminate our proceedings in an amicable spirit, and with a feeling that we have done our duty, I should be prepared to meet the views expressed by the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) and the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) in not taking these Clauses affecting the National Debt until to-morrow night. We might proceed from Clause 14 down to the end of Clause 17.

Mr. KELLY: I do not think that even that suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman is satisfactory. If he feels that now that we have reached this stage we cannot go on with the Clause immediately following that has certainly the effect of postponing the whole discussion. We are quite prepared to go on with the whole matter in the sequence as we have it now. The right hon. Gentleman said it was difficult to explain these matters at this time of night. After our being engaged the whole night on this work, he comes with that statement and gives that as a justification for postponement. My party, I hope, are not going to accept it.

Mr. HARDIE: I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not looking so well as he usually looks. He is not just up to normal health during this night, and, while I am prepared to consider things like that, had the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to go away he could have left his Bill in security in charge of his assistant and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. We might have kept the sequence in the Bill. I think, if we look a little more closely at the Clause, we shall see the reason for the postponement. You notice it in the point of the first £500. Had this been something dealing with the man on 30s. a week, there would have been no postponement until the friends of the 30s. a week man were in the House to put forward Amendments. It is a malicious thing to do. Surely, if it is wrong to discuss this part of the Bill at this hour of the morning, it is wrong to discuss any other part, because a properly balanced Finance Bill must have all its parts balanced. If a part is out of balance, you cannot get anything to swing. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer was never more out of his balance than he is now. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer gave him a little bit of a thrashing yesterday, but he should not take it out of us who are not responsible. I would not mind if it was coming to me for something I had done.
6.0 a.m.
The suggestion is that we should pass on; the right hon. Gentleman would like to see us get down to Clause 17. That is just the point. The excuse he made was that we were not fit mentally to give due consideration to the Income Tax Clause, and yet we are supposed to have
the mental capacity to deal with what he proposes. If we are in a fit condition to do that, we are in a fit position to deal with any other part of the Bill. There has been a relay system going on all night, and, while other Ministers were acting as reliefs, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was no doubt trying to sleep. That is an unfair thing. The Attorney-General is now sleeping, and I am sorry for him also. We are not going to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pick out certain bits of his Bill in order to suit the convenience of his Friends. We are going on, as we have always gone on, but we are going to demand the sequence of the Bill. The hour is now 6 o'clock, and some of us have been on these premises since 10 o'clock yesterday morning. We are not complaining; we are explaining. When we take that into consideration, it seems to me that nothing but insult is meant by asking the Committee to meet his convenience. We are not here to obey the dictates of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; we are here to obey the best methods of business. We are not here to have it thrown at us that we are in the position mentally that we are not capable of considering this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be speaking for the Members on his side, but if he is the sportsman that he is advertised to be, he will take this Clause now and let us fight it out fairly and squarely.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has certainly given us a rather more conciliatory speech than we have had from that Bench in the last seven or eight hours. But he really has no ground for saying that he had any assurance that facilities would be given for progress on this Bill to-day. It is true that, in asking leave to report Progress last night, I said that the Debate had been conducted with good humour and that we had made good progress, but there was no assurance at all with regard to any arrangement for subsequent business on the Committee stage of this Bill. If there is any point made with regard to the length of speeches, it cannot be made here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) moved to report Progress nearly six hours ago, so that we might obtain quite definitely from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer what his intentions were with regard to the subsequent stages of discussion.

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. Is it in order for hon. Gentlemen to lie snoring on the seats when business is going on.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I was saying, when I was interrupted, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley moved to report Progress six hours ago in order that we might obtain a specific statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what his intentions were with regard to the progress of this stage of the Bill We had a very unsatisfactory answer from the President of the Board of Trade. We did not know what the specific intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were, but it was conveyed to us second hand that it was hoped to get the whole of the Clauses, whatever time might be necessary.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It was entirely due to a misunderstanding that I was not in my place when the right hon. Gentleman rose to inquire and made the Motion to report Progress. I had understood that he was going to make that Motion immediately after the last part of the business then under discussion had been disposed of. Instead of that, he rose unexpectedly, as I gather from him, immediately before instead of immediately after the Division was taken. Although I knew that he was to make the Motion, I was not able to reach the Chamber before he sat down. It is a regrettable accident which, I am sure, arose from a misunderstanding.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We must ask hon. Members on the other side to consider the position of a large number of hon. Members on this side. When the last train has gone, there is no earthly reason why we should not go straight on with the business for which we have been kept up. There is no other course open to most of my hon. Friends but to stay here right through the night or to go on with the business. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues do not bear that in mind, we cannot be expected at 6 o'clock in the morning suddenly to come into a new and conciliatory spirit and give facilities. With regard to the last suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he could make arrange-
ments, if we agreed, to postpone Clauses 13 and 18 if we gave him Clauses 14, 15, 16 and 17, obviously that is on the assumption that these intermediate Clauses are not contentious and will not require any debate at the sitting later in the day.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not say that they could not be debated. We could have a discussion, but it would not be of a controversial character. I am suggesting that we go to Clause 17 and omit Clause 13.

Mr. ALEXANDER: They will not take longer to debate now than later in the day. We might as well debate Clause 13 as the later Clause, and as far as I am concerned, I have been warned by hon. Members on the other side that, on certain Clauses, matters would be raised in which both they and I are interested. I have been here the whole night for the purpose. Why should I, then, be asked suddenly to agree to the postponement of this Clause when we have been sitting here for the specific reason of hearing matters raised that they warned us were to be raised on that particular Clause? We do not want to cut across the spirit of conciliation, but I do not think we are called upon to agree to this proposal.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am perfectly certain of this, that a pledge given by the Government has been broken. The President of the Board of Trade told the Committee that they intended to get all the Clauses to-night, but there was no mention that Clause 13 was to be postponed. Now we are departing from a statement made by the President of the Board of Trade. It is breaking word. I have been here all the time, and there is no Member of the House who can say that there was any wish to treat the Government badly. We could have been at Clause 5 or Clause 6. We could have gone on hours and hours longer, and the proof is that the Government have never needed to move the Closure. Even on the last Clause—Clause 12—we made no speeches, and we did not even force a vote, and then we get amazing cheek, which only the Chancellor of the Exchequer possesses. He rises in his place and says the Government have not been fairly treated. He is breaking the pledge given on behalf of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am certain,
before he made his speech, never consulted his own Whips. If he had consulted the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, he would have told him to adjourn the House, being satisfied with the progress made. There has been no obstruction, and it is only the Chancellor of the Exchequer who wants to drive on. He is the only Member of his party who is fresh.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been practically in every Division.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There is no doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Chief Whip, he would be informed that the Government had got their expectation. As a matter of fact, the person who is obstructing is the Chancellor himself. I am sure Clause 13 would have been passed. It is one we agreed to pass. He is keeping back his own Bill, and he blames us when he is the leading obstructionist. Any Whip doing what he is doing would get his money to-morrow. But for some big twist the Chancellor starts up and says we must postpone the Clause. Now we begin to find out one or two reasons. We begin to look at this Clause and see what is behind it. Hollow-ware can be taken at three o'clock in the morning, but a Clause for the friends of the rich must be taken at his own time.

Mr. B. SMITH: Last night, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) put a question to the President of the Board of Trade, and his statement was very definite. In consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said, it was the intention of the Government to take the whole of the Clauses of the Bill to-night and that the new Clauses would come on to-morrow. That was the statement definitely made, and made in the name of the Chancellor.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot consider that statement and the wish and the hopes of the Government in regard to the progress of the business as a pledge binding to carry out that programme. Why, it is not in our power, if we sat until the next Sitting began, to carry the whole of this Bill in the face of considerable discussion. Intentions in regard to business are always subject to the progress of business, and any considerations that may be thrown up in debate.

Mr. B. SMITH: The Chancellor wants to postpone Clause 13, but the statement made was that the whole of the Clauses were to be discussed to-night.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot admit that there is any question of a breach of faith.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: May I venture to put a suggestion in this matter? Undoubtedly, there is a strong feeling among a good many Members on this side of the House that they want to have a fair discussion on Clause 13. I think it is a reasonable suggestion, because there has been a lot of misunderstanding outside the House and in the Press about the new arrangements that are going to be made as to Income Tax and what is now called Surtax. At the same time, I should be very sorry to be pressing on the Chancellor of the Exchequer anything which even wrongly could be described as a breach of faith. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that the President of the Board of Trade gave an assurance earlier in the evening that we were going to take all the Clauses. I would just throw out a suggestion. Would it be possible that we should go on with these Clauses now and take them to the end of Clause 17, and the Chancellor give us an assurance that on Report stage we shall have a proper discussion on Clause 13, and that we have it at some reasonable hour of the day? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I just throw out the suggestion to see whether it is acceptable to the other side of the Committee.

Mr. MACKINDER: The Chancellor wants to select what business he is going to transact, but it is not going to be done in sequence. If the Chancellor wants to discuss Clause 13 at a reasonable hour, it is up to him to ask us to report Progress. I speak for myself, and I speak for a number of my colleagues. We shall not ask to report Progress. If the Chancellor wants to get the Finance Bill through, we will stop up and do it. If he wants to discuss Clause 13 we are prepared to do it. We want the Clause fully discussed, and if Members are not here, it is not our fault. If the Chancellor wants to discuss it in its proper place it is up to him to ask to report Progress. I am prepared to sit all day and all night. If the Chancellor is going to take that point of view I am prepared to suggest to some of our Members that
we make longer speeches on each Amendment, and that we have the closure moved on us. The Chancellor cannot say that last night there has been any obstruction. There has been no obstruction at all. The mere fact that there have been all the Divisions without a single Closure on the speeches shows that there has been no obstruction. I say it is almost impertinent to ask the Committee at six o'clock in the morning to jump over a Clause and go on to something else. It may be important, but it was not too important to discuss articles of domestic use in working-class households at three o'clock in the morning. That was an important matter to us, and is is just as necessary that we should discuss very important matters at six o'clock in the morning. I for one am prepared to sit here all day, and make longer speeches, unless the Chancellor is prepared to report Progress. [An HON. MEMBER: "Say it again!"] I can say it again. I am quite in order in saying it at least a dozen times. As a Member of this side of the Committee I have been doing work, and Members on the other side of the Committee have been tearing paper, and making rude interjections. We can make longer speeches and we can get closured. I suggest that the only thing the Chancellor can do in fairness to us and himself is to report Progress.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid that I cannot respond to that appeal.

Mr. MACKINDER: It is not an appeal; it is a challenge.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot bow to that challenge. We have sat also for a long time. We have not made the progress which we expected to make in our discussions. We have now reached another set of Clauses. No one can say that they are controversial, and I had hoped that we could have wound up with them. As for my suggestion, I made it in a conciliatory spirit, and it has been treated with extreme harshness. My assumption was that progress of business would be rapid. I must ask the Committee to postpone Clause 13, and proceed with the further Clauses in the Bill. It is true the Closure has not been moved. It has always been my desire, following most distinguished Chancellors of years
gone by, to carry the Budget as far as possible without recourse to the Closure, and I should be very reluctant to make any such suggestion. I trust that may be avoided. Let us proceed on our course of duty faithfully.

Mr. MARDY JONES: When similar Clauses were discussed last year in the early hours of the morning we protested against serious Clauses being taken at that hour. Surely, the Bill should be taken as a whole. There are some important proposals. We object very strongly to this proposal of skipping this Clause at this stage.

Mr. MACLEAN: I have listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer making several explanations, and he always winds up by informing the Committee that he intends to stick to the proposal he has made, and asks the Committee to postpone this particular proposal. I want to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is taking rather an arbitrary attitude at this time in the morning. He himself has been responsible for holding up the business of the Committee for the past hour and a-half. If he had not made that proposal we would in all probability have passed over Clause 13 by this time. He wants the Committee to abandon Clause 13, meantime go right on, and then take Clause 13 up when we resume business later to-day. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is expecting too much from members on this side of the Committee. He is asking too much. He has stated that they have not moved the Closure. They have had no reason to move the Closure; no cause has been given by the Opposition to move the Closure. The Opposition has treated the Government in every respect in a way that has enabled them to get through with their business. There have been a great many Amendments down, but every one discussed has been shown to be an important Amendment, in that it has been called upon by the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of the House of Commons. They have been discussed, and the Government themselves have admitted that they have been discussed rationally, that no obstructive methods have been employed, while the Government have not employed the Closure. All I have to say with regard to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer is that he was very ill-advised in making the proposal that he did make. Those of us who have waited through the night carrying on this business are prepared to go right on until relays belonging to this side of the House come back, and are able to carry on a little longer. If the Chancellor does not watch it, we shall overlap into to-day's sitting, and he will lose a whole day's sitting. I say that the attitude taken up by the Chancellor and persisted in by him at this hour in the morning is ill-advised. As far as I am concerned, I have taken very little part in the Debate on this Bill, but now I shall do everything I can and employ all the tactics of which my connection with this House has given me some knowledge, to obstruct this Bill and retard its progress. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has had it practically all his own way. We, on this side, have not employed the Standing Orders to obstruct business, but, if the Chancellor persists in this attitude, we will let him see that we understand, not only the procedure of this House, but all the tactics to retard the Bill. He will see if he gets his Finance Bill through by Friday. I should like the Chancellor to take a thought as we say in Scotland. Second thoughts are best. Let him give a little cool reflection to it and give a sound reason why the House should accept the Motion to postpone the Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would remind the Committee that yesterday I said that, relying on the assurances which I had received, that the House would be willing to expedite this business, I was ready to fall in with any arrangement. I am afraid that there is no such spirit, and in that case it is certainly not the hon. Gentleman who has any right to reproach me with harsh conduct on any occasion. We have listened with very much patience to the whole discussion.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can you point out any part in this Debate where the opposition of the Labour party has taken up more time as an Opposition than the right hon. Gentleman's own friends? The major portion of the time taken up on the Bill has been by members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party.

Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

Division No. 210.]
AYES.
[6.36 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ganzoni, Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Goff, Sir Park
Preston, William


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Raine, Sir Walter


Bethel, A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Ramsden, E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harland, A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Blundell, F. N.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ropner, Major L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Honnessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hilton, Cecil
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Bullock, Captain M.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Carver, Major W. H.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Christie, J. A.
Loder, J. de V.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Long, Major Eric
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lougher, Lewis
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tinne, J. A.


Cooper, A. Duff
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Couper, J. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLean, Major A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F, (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Wells, S. R.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ellis, R. G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wragg, Herbert


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph



Finburgh, S.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fraser, Captain Ian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Captain Viscount Curzon and Major


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oakley, T.
Sir William Cope.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Penny, Frederick George





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hllisbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, Ernest


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Windsor, Walter


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold



Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.

Question put accordingly: "That the Clause be postponed."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 56.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 57.

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Breton & Rad.)
Preston, William


Blundell, F. N.
Hammersley, S. S.
Radford, E. A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, Sir Walter


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harland, A.
Ramsden, E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hilton, Cecil
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Christie, J. A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Savery, S. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Shepperson, E. W.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lamb, J. Q.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Loder, J. de V.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Long, Major Eric
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Couper, J. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsay, Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dawson, Sir Phillip
McLean, Major A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Macmillan, Captain H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ellis, R. G.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Watts, Sir Thomas


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wells, S. R.


Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Finburgh, S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Womersley, W. J.


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Oakley, T.
Wragg, Herbert


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Penny, Frederick George



Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goff, Sir Park
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Major Sir William Cope.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Thurtle, Ernest


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dalton, Hugh
MacLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Fenby, T. D.
Murnin, H.
Windsor, Walter


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

CLAUSE 14.—(Deductions in respect of children.)

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be postponed."
In comparison with Clause 13, Clause 14 is of interest to a very much larger number of persons. Clause 13 deals with the commercial affairs of a comparatively-small number of Super-tax payers. Clause 14 deals with the financial affairs of the whole body of Income Tax payers, including many poor people who
have children and who, it is proposed, shall receive a larger measure of relief. My hon. Friend believed I welcomed the principle underlying this Clause at an earlier stage of the discussion, but there are many things that they would wish to say, suggestions of detail that they might make, and hints for further extension of the principle which it embodies. They are no less desirous that their remarks should be reported in the Press and should therefore be made at a more appropriate hour of the day, than
the Chancellor of the Exchequer is desirous that this concession to the Super-tax payers should be properly reported in the "Times" and the "Daily Mail." Consequently, since Clause 13 has now been postponed, there is no reason whatever for continuing with Clause 14 which we repeat, is of even greater importance. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see no objection to accepting this Motion, which I make following the precedent set by him on the previous Clause.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very much surprised at such a proposal from hon. Gentlemen opposite after the very fierce denunciation which has been poured out on the policy of picking and choosing. The Clause which confers great benefit on the smaller class of Income Tax payers is not one to which any real objection should be taken, but I think I may conceivably

Division No. 212.]
AYES.
[6.56 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Oakley, T.


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Preston, William


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Radford, E. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Goff, Sir Park
Raine, Sir Walter


Bethel, A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsden, E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hammersley, S. S.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Blundell, F. N.
Harland, A.
Ropner, Major L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Henderson, Capt R. R. (Oxf'd, Heneley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Savery, S. S.


Bullock, Captain M.
Hilton, Cecil
Shepperson, E. W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh' n)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Christie, J. A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Loder, J. de V.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cooper, A. Duff
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cope, Major Sir William
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Tinne, J. A.


Couper, J. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Dawson, Sir Philip
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S. R.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wragg, Herbert


Finburgh, S.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.



Fraser, Captain Ian
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bromfield, William
Charleton, H. C.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Compton, Joseph


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)


Batey, Joseph
Buchanan, G.
Crawfurd, H. E.

interpret the request of the hon. Member on behalf of the Opposition that we should postpone this Clause as being in the nature of an appeal to bring the proceedings to a close. As I am very anxious that we should not separate in bad blood, I shall accede to the appeal. It shall be postponed, and I will then take the further step of moving to report Progress and asking leave to sit again.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Continuance of allowance for repairs under s. 28 of 13 and 14 Geo. 5. c. 14.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Motion made, and Question put, "That, the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Churchill.]

The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes 56.

Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Fenby, T. D.
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibbins, Joseph
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Whiteley, W.


Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John



Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.


Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, Ernest

Committee report Progress; to sit again To morrow.

Orders of the Day — SELECTION.

Ordered, "That Sir Henry Cautley be added to the Committee of Selection."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLICATION AND DEBATES REPORTS.

Ordered, "That Sir Arthur Shirley Benn be added to the Select Committee
on Publications and Debates Reports."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the. Standing Order.

Adjourned at five minutes after seven o'clock a.m.